Russian victory in Novorossiya as a new chapter opens in Syria - September, 2014

The current geopolitical landscape is evolving fast. The old format so recklessly put together by Western powers during the aftermaths of the first and second world wars is slowly changing. The unipolarity of the post-Soviet era is gradually and now increasingly painfully transforming into a multipolar reality. Although they may still seem invisible to the untrained eye, we are in fact witnessing the twilight of Western global hegemony.

What is happening in Ukraine and in the Middle East today is very serious and it goes beyond the threat of regional wars per se for what's ultimately at stake is the current - Western - world order. Even veteran Western diplomats such as Henry Kissinger are now beginning to recognize this Western dilemma. I do not need to remind the old war criminal that "the concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis" today primarily because the political order in question could not be sustained for it was based on the unsustainable paradigm of perpetual growth economic model and unipolarity in politics (i.e. Western global hegemony).

It is therefore quite inevitable that borders will be changing around the world in the coming years and blood will be spilled. How drastic the changes and how cruel the bloodshed yet remains to be seen. Nevertheless, what we are living through in recent years is the birthpangs of a post Anglo-American world. The new, multipolar world order will thus be born in a lot of pain and anguish. While Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia and Libya were the prelude, Syria and Ukraine are the opening acts of what will eventually prove to be a very long and bloody play that will ultimately end with the death of the Anglo-American-Zionist world order. But humanity still has a long way to go before it witnesses that finale.

The need for new enemies as the face of 9/11 changes

For centuries it has been recognized that "all warfare is based on deception".
Less recognized within this category of warfare however is the following
realization: A leadership must deceive not only its enemy but also its
citizenry - because history has taught us that waging war without the
enthusiastic support of the subjects, be it in a kingdom, democracy or a
dictatorship, is a recipe for disaster.

In modern times making war by deception has become a highly refined art form and an exact science. State officials continue to seek ways to make their subjects want to
fight enemies both real and unreal. Depending on what civilization
a particular nation finds itself in, religion, nationalism, tribalism and/or fear are
effective tools to use in this regard. And the catalyst upon which the aforementioned tools travel upon is a nation's educational system, internet, news media, television programming and cinema.

On
the eve of the thirteenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001
attacks, the house negro serving in the White House (I actually feel sorry for the man and his family) was handed a script
to read. Suddenly, all the pieces of the ISIS puzzle are falling into place. It
is beginning to make better sense now. ISIS, ISIL, IS or whatever else
they will call it in the coming years is the new Al-Qaeda and the highly suspicious beheadings
of Foley, Sotloff and Haines (I am not sure about Haines but the first two in my opinion were
intelligence operatives working for the CIA and Mossad respectively) was
the new 9/11.

In other words, it's the changing face of 9/11. Similar to what Al-Qaeda was before its
terror value for the American cattle expired several years ago when they put the overused and no longer scary Osama Bin Laden scarecrow to rest, ISIS is the new, even nastier monster created via their allies in the region - Saudi Arabia, Qatar,
Turkey and Jordan - and exploited by Western intelligence.

In short, ISIS was meant to literally slaughter
its way into
the people's consciousness and dwell in their nightmares. ISIS was
meant to turn the typical antiwar pacifist in the Western world into a
warmonger. Similar to what Western forces did in
Baghdad in 2003, ISIS was meant to "shock and awe" its enemies on the ground into retreating without resisting. Now, ISIS provides the perfect
opportunity to breakup Iraq, bomb Syria and pull imperial forces from the West back into the strategic Middle East. With
ISIS running wild in Mesopotamia they have once more given their
so-called "war on terror" a whole new life. With ISIS, they have once
more terrified the Anglo-American cattle into actually wanting their militaries to return to Iraq.With
the appearance of ISIS, American officials have also managed to stop
the further Iranification of Iraq by essentially forcing the Shiite-led Iraqi government to grant Iraqi Sunnis more political power.

Deception, manipulation and - conflict management - at its finest and ugliest.

For
the elite of any ambitious political entity, having an enemy is
important because it helps governing bodies focus resources and rally
the sheeple. After all, if all's well and the
country is not threatened, how would they excuse the expenditure of a
nation's fortune on arms procurement? How would they explain the need to
maintain
hundreds of military bases around the world? How would they explain why
troops had to kill and be killed in remote lands Americans cannot
pronounce let alone locate on the map?
If there was no imminent threat to the nation how would they question
the citizenry's patriotism and stifle dissent? Without a very imminent
threat facing the nation how would they explain tampering with the
nation's constitution? None of what I am saying here is a new revelation
-

As the reader can see, having an enemy is very important for an ambitious nation-state.
But Washington and friends have had a problem in this regard because for the past
twenty-five years the Western political order has not had any serious/major enemies on the global stage.

So, what to do?Well, create an enemy - maybe even two, or three, or four...The
bigger you are the more manageable enemies you have the better. Washington and
friends are so powerful, so self-assured - and so blinded by gluttony and
arrogance - that they actually have the need to create enemies in
today's world. And they are actually excelling at it. They
have in recent years managed to turn Venezuela, Russia, Syria, Iran, North Korea and China
into enemies, and they have quite literally created the terror group ISIS as yet another
archenemy to focus the American cattle's attention on for the next few
years. I guess the following political cartoon does a much better job of
explaining what I am trying to convey to the reader -

The
simple process pictured in the cartoon above is more-or-less what took
place in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and it is what they are currently
trying to do in Syria. This simple process is what's behind the genocide of Christians and Yezidis in Syria and Iraq. Western
powers and their regional Wahhabi friends have turned the Middle East
into a bloodbath from which it will not recover for another few
generations.

Similar to how they have turned Russia into the new enemy to protect Europe from, as they pursue their self-serving imperial agenda of curbing the rise of Russian influence in the region,
ISIS will henceforth be the new enemy
to protect the Middle East from,
as they pursue their self-serving imperial agenda of curbing the rise of
Iranian influence in the region. For Washingtonian reptiles,
Russophobic racists in eastern Europe and Iranophobic Wahhabists
in the Middle East therefore essentially serve the exact same
geostrategic purpose.

We
are therefore now back in square one. We are back to where we started from last
year. It was only last summer when the global community was standing
again on the verge of witnessing yet another major Western war crime in the making.
Back then, as many of you shall recall, it was the serin gas attack on
civilians that they used as an excuse. Despite clear evidence that the gas attack was carried-out by anti-Assad Islamic militants themselves, Western powers did their best to blame Bashar
Assad's government. Their only concern was to justify a military aggression against Syria.
The reader may recall that this was also about the time when the bloodthirsty war criminal known as John
McCain was in Syria meeting with Islamic extremists that many say were in fact ISIS members. Then, quite unexpectedly, Russian intervention forced them to call off their attack plans. This was almost exactly one year ago, but no one in their right mind
thought that it would be the end of the story.

No one who understands
anything about geopolitics and the political West thought that the
Anglo-American-Zionist alliance would be forced to sit at
the table with a victorious Bashar Assad - with Moscow mediating nonetheless. After all, the brutal
reputation of the American empire as well as the crucially important
agenda to curb the growth of Shiite power and Russian influence in the
Middle East was at stake. Therefore, the
Anglo-American-Zionists would go to any length to realize their goals. One of the lengths they went to, so as it now seems, was to use all
their levers in the region (primarily Anbar province Sunni tribes, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, Qatar and Turkey) to prop-up the present day monster known as
ISIS and use it as an excuse to set their sights back on Syria.

Exactly
a year after their plans against Syria wasfoiled at the last minuteby Moscow, they have quite literally found a backdoor entry into Syria.
Warmongers in the West are once more beating the war drums against
Syria because in the convoluted, bloodstained world of the
Anglo-American-Zionist global order: "Defeating
the Islamic State will also require attacks on the Assad regime".

When they announced their plan to attack Syria a year ago they were met with an antiwar outcry throughout the US. This time around they have figured out a way to get the American cattle to support
their plan. As noted above, Americans have been shocked into compliance. An amazing feat of social engineering and mind control I must say! I guess the power of nightmares
does work wonders for warpigs in Washington after all. Since
American civilization today is devoid of spirituality, genuine
patriotism, critical thinking and rationale, fear is what works best with Americans. Scare the shit out of the little sheeple and then herd them to wherever you want them to go!As I said, deception and conflict management at its ugliest.

Even from a basic military/strategic point of view the rationale behind Washington's motive does not make much sense. After all, this is not a domestic dispute or a street fight
and the military staff in Washington are not novices. The American empire has been waging wars overseas every few years on average. Simply put: You
don't go after a perceived enemy thousands of miles away when the enemy in question is supposedly trying to draw you into a war. You don't go to war under the enemy's terms. You don't wage a war on a whole region nonetheless simply because someone there has supposedly murdered a few of your citizens. Nations, major powers in particular, wage wars for strategic and/or economic reasons, and such wars are carefully/meticulously planned for many years in advance. In other words, despite what you hear on the television by government mouthpieces, when US troops invaded Iraq in 2003 under the pretext of searching for weapons-of-mass-destruction, it wasn't a "mistakes", it was an agenda. On the other side of the coin: As
sophisticated as they are said to be, why would ISIS leadership try to attract Western attention by publicly killing Westerners and taunting President Obama when they are already waging a war against non-aligned rebel groups in Syria, Bashar Assad's Allewites, Shiites of Iraq and Kurds? As clever as they seem to be are they so stupid as to needlessly provoke the Western military against them? Didn't they supposedly see what happened back in 2001 when Al-Qaeda allegedly provoked the West?

In
the big picture: What is happening in Syria and Iraq is ultimately a fight over spoils of war. Syria and Iraq, as we knew them, are dead. A new nation, or nations, are to emerge from the ashes of what was once Syria and Iraq. All are now currently
maneuvering to get a piece of the pie once its ready. In other words, the fighting now is about who will get what after the final bomb explodes. All (i.e. Western powers, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia and Iran) are currently maneuvering for the best seat in the house. ISIS therefore needs the West to reinvade Iraq and rekindle the Western agenda in Syria.

Therefore, I ask: What interests is ISIS serving? The answer is: Western, Israeli, Turkish and Gulf Arab interests. The entire story behind ISIS and the current case for war against ISIS is stuff worthy only for a tacky Hollywood movie. For the life of me I do not understand how humans - adults - believe all this bullshit.

Islamic wing of the Western war machine

Sunni Islamic groups are first and foremost serving a Western agenda in the Middle East. What is happening in Iraq and Syria is first and foremost an anti-Shiite/anti-Iranian agenda. Evidence of this agenda is the ten years old civil war in Yemen where tens-of-thousands of people have died as a result of an uprising against the
Yemeni government.
But because the rebels in Yemen are Shiites and the dictatorial government
in Sanaa is led by Sunnis, the Western press has all but ignored the conflict and
the Western public knows next to nothing about what's going on in the country. In fact,
US military operations have actually been targeting the Shiite rebel leadership
in Yemen under the guise of pursuing Islamic terrorists or Al-Qaeda
operatives. Needless to say, having suffered Anglo-American-Zionist oppression for many decades, Iranians will not go along with Washington's latest plan for the Middle East. Please make time to read the Iranian take on current events -

For several decades now Wahhabi/Salafi extremist groups have essentially been the Islamic wing of the Anglo-American-Zionist war machine. Ever since the CIA made a pact with Saudi-backed Islamic radicals in Pakistan starting around 1979, the Wahhabi factor has been an important component in Western policy formulations throughout Eurasia. Seeing
how successful they were against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s,
Western powers have been using Islamic extremists in various theaters around the world with increasing frequency in recent years.

The following picture is more-or-less how it all started -

The following picture is where we are today -

From the Caucasus to the Balkans, from North Africa to Central Asia, Islamic hordes have been advancing one Western interest after another. Similar to how Libyan and Syrian "rebel" groups have had offices in Western nations, even Turkic Uyghurs of China who have been periodically carrying-out horrible attacks against civilians there have a presence inside Washington. If one day the Turkic/Islamic agenda advances in China, you can bet it will have been masterminded and put into effect right from Washington -

In
stark contrast to what Washington has been doing in Ukraine, where the
sentiments of the pro-Russia population there was utterly disregarded and crimes
against it were totally ignored, talk about combating ISIS is now oddly being centered
around creating an "all-inclusive" government in Baghdad. "All-inclusive" is a code word for stopping further growth of Shiite power in Iraq. Every
single American political pundit, newspaper op-ed or US official I have seen
addressing the situation at hand is primarily concerned about helping minority
Sunnis share government with majority Shiites. It's all about curbing Shiite/Iranian influence/power. Needless to say, in case
Shiites of Iraq resist the aforementioned agenda in any meaningful way, Washington and friends hold the option of having ISIS type groups carve
out of Iraq a territory for Sunnis similar to what they have done with Kurdistan
in northern Iraq.

Nevertheless, the
resulting media hype about ISIS throughout the mainstream news press in the Western world has been breathtakingly thorough. Who
in their right minds now would dare speak publicly against the valiant Western effort to fight bloodthirsty barbarians that go around blowing up monuments, beheading
westerners and genociding locals?Yet, unbeknownst to the public, ISIS can actually be stopped with just two phone calls: one to Riyadh, one to Ankara.

[Speaking of ISIS, Riyadh and Ankara, there may in fact be a conflict brewing inside ISIS vis-à-vis Kurdistan. Naturally, Ankara does not want to see an independent Kurdistan to its south, whereas Saudi Arabia, Israel and Western powers do. Some of
the discrepancies we have been seeing with regards to actions taken by ISIS may therefore have its
root in this internal matter. In my opinion, this will prove to be the Achilles' Heel of ISIS]

For added
perspective on regional geopolitics, the Western role in the Middle East, ISIS or Islamic terrorism in general, please revisit
my blog commentaries -

I reiterate: With the overused and now ineffective name "Al-Qaeda" no longer able to keep the American cattle awake at
nights, ISIS headhunters will henceforth be the convenient excuse to continue their
crimes against humanity and
keep the
strategic region in question embroiled in bloody conflict. Therefore a new, and perhaps a more bloody chapter is being opened in global affairs.Russians, Syrians and Iranians are
already seeing the writing on the wall.Major
powers are once more converging over Mesopotamia. It will be
interesting to see how this
all will play out in the coming months and years. In the meanwhile may
God help Bashar Assad and all Alewites and Christians in Syria.

Russian victory in Novorossiya

Ever since that very awkward handshake in Minsk between President Putin and the chocolate king, it was essentially down
hill for the ill-fated Ukrainian military effort in Novorossiya. Ukrainian troops have in recent weeks been comprehensively routed by pro-Russian rebels. The town of Ilovaisk
in particular will be long remembered for it was the site of an
unusually bloody and one-sided military engagement that essentially
brought the
junta in Kiev to its knees. In a span of twenty-four hours hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers were killed and maimed and dozens of their armored vehicles destroyed -

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin once said "artillery is the god of war". He was certainly right. From all the news
reports I have seen, it is now pretty obvious that artillery - large caliber mortars and mobile multiple rocket launchers in particular - played a major
role in defeating the Western-backed Ukrainian forces on the battlefields of Novorossiya. Entire Ukrainian army
battalions have been all but wiped-out by very accurate strikes. I
suspect artillery spotters from the Russian military, perhaps even Russian surveillance
drones, were behind these actions that led to the utter defeat of the Ukrainian army.Kiev
is currently in no shape to mount any kind of military operation inside
territories under pro-Russian control because they have suffered
several thousand casualties and scores of military hardware lost
(including a warship) during the several weeks preceding the September 5
truce alone. The following is a partial and still growing list of
armored vehicle losses suffered in the civil war in Ukraine -

Ilovaisk
was not the only place the junta in Kiev suffered serious losses on the
battlefield. Between the time when the above noted handshake took place
and the ceasefire of September 05, Kiev suffered a series of
devastating losses throughout Novorossiya. This convinced the junta that
Novorossiya was not going to be subdued. High combat loses were in fact the reason why Kiev finally sued for a ceasefire. It
was only therefore inevitable that such loses on the battlefield would be felt in
the political arena as well, as seen in the following polling results and the latest news from Brussels -

It
was only inevitable that the tough talking chocolate king, who until
very recently refused to negotiate with the pro-Russian rebels and did
not hesitate using heavy artillery on civilian targets, is now hoping
for peace and promising "special status" for the Russian-speaking
population of Novorossiya -

In
the opinion of pro-Russian separatist leadership in Novorossiya, as
well as mine, concessions from Kiev are too little, too late. As in
Nagorno Karabakh, as in Abkhazia, as in South Ossetia, too much blood
has been spilled.The pro-Russian population of south-eastern Ukraine has won their right to self-determination.
There is a new reality on the ground now that needs to be acknowledged
by the West, lest things get much worst for all involved. Nevertheless,
Novorossiya, once the industrial heartland of Ukraine, is on the path to
self-determination and eventual reunion with Mother Russia.

In
the meanwhile, Kiev will not join NATO nor will it be accepted in the
EU. As predicated, Ukraine will become a politically unstable and
economically desolate buffer zone between Russia and the West. As
predicted, the West will now have to spend a fortune simply to keep
Ukraine from becoming a failed on its doorstep. As predicated, the Karabakhization of south-eastern Ukraine is now complete and Novorossiya is defacto liberated and under the protection of Mother Russia.Having
already liberated Crimea and not wanting to overreach and in doing so
risk a major war in Europe, Moscow will for the time being be content
with merely having indirect control over Novorossiya and in the process
sabotage Kiev's prospects of joining
either the EU or NATO. Moscow did not want this conflict. This conflict
was thrust upon Russia. But grossmeisters in Moscow have been making the
most of the situation ever since. More importantly, Moscow has
successfully resisted Western efforts in trying to pull Russia into an
overt military engagement with Ukraine.

Time to cut the umbilical cord with the West

There
was a time when the US Dollar was backed by gold reserves and the
global public, including Soviet peoples, looked up to the Western world.
Today, the US Dollar is backed by US military interventions around the
world and the global public has come to fear and despise the Western
world. The political West has become a source of evil around the world.The current global political landscape needs some transformations.Russia's
transition from being a nation that was integrated into the Western-led global economic/financial system (which was essentially imposed on Moscow during the post-Soviet years) into a nation that is truly independent and its economic and financial models based on the
sound parameters of nationalism and socialism may prove to be somewhat painful but moving away from Western dependency is absolutely essential for the long-term health and well-being of the Russian
nation as well as the world at large. Regardless of how much it may hurt, the Russian Federation needs to gradually move away from
the Bretton Woods paradigm.

In the big picture, and in the long-term, by cutting its umbilical cord with the West, what Moscow is doing today is absolutely an essential first step not only for securing its future but also for laying down the foundations of a multipolar world. Moscow needs to concentrate on further deepening its relations with China, India, Egypt, Iran and Brazil. Moscow also needs to do its best to lure Germany and France away from the Anglo-American-Zionist alliance.

Moscow has finally gotten around to addressing Western inroads in a
crucially strategic sector in Russian society, its mass media. Foreign
ownership in Russian media outlets is to be limited to 20%. By embarking
on these types of national security issues, it is only natural that the
Kremlin will come into conflict with people in Russia that became very
wealthy and influential during the chaotic years following the Soviet
collapse. When Moscow thus comes into conflict with its nouveau riche,
it is only natural that is will begin cracking down on them if they pose
a threat to the state or if don't comply with state regulations.
Ultimately, we need to keep in mind that it was Western machinations
against the Russian state that has gotten us to where we are today. We
also need to recognize that while Russia needs western expertize - it
needs to eliminate dependency on Western money even more. In my opinion,
the best way forward in this regard is to limit its exposure to the
Anglo-American-Zionist world and concentrate on better relations with
Germany and France. Nevertheless, Russia desperately needs to shed its 1990s era
toxicity. The process to detoxify may hurt a little, but Russia, as an
independent state, will be much better off in the long term. In the
meanwhile, more power to the Russian state. I am glad to see that it's
being built on the sound principles of national socialism -

No doubt Russia may have some short-term problems during this transformation process. It will be the Western system however that will collapse one day because the Western concept of a "perpetual growth" economy, that which the entire Western system is base upon, is utterly irrational and unsustainable. Needless to say, nations closely tied to the West (i.e. nation enslaved by Western banks and mega-corporations) also risk serious collapse in the future.

Nations that allow
billionaires to get intimately involved in politics cannot be trusted. Nations that
allow powerful lobbies to impact politics cannot be trusted. Nations that allow warmongers to influence politics cannot be trusted. Nations
that allow the privatization of strategic infrastructure or national assets cannot be trusted. Nations where financial power takes precedence over national considerations do not have future.

Simply put: Western
style capitalism does not work well in most nations and even in Western
nations it will not work well in the long-term.

I am therefore very happy to see that Moscow is finally putting a stout leash on individuals and
organizations that became very powerful and influential during the lawless years of the 1990s. I am very happy to see that the Kremlin is finally cracking down on businessmen in Russia that may be cooperating with the West against the Kremlin's wishes. Let's recognize that everything we fear and dislike about the US today is centered on the realization that it's the empire's financial/economic elite - and not genuine
American patriots in government - that are dictating policy in Washington. Therefore, I am very glad that Russia is a nation where moneymen are subservient to the state. There is another aspect to this for us Armenians. Had Russia been like the West, where powerful lobbies and moneymen initiate political discourse, Russians would have sold Armenia to the Turks or Azeris a very, very long time ago.

The global community seriously needs to a stop the self-destructive habit of looking at everything from a Western prism. We need to stop comparing everything to the Western model. We can learn a lot from the Western model but we must never become dependent on it. Nation-states need to form pacts that are truly independent and self-sufficient and not allow Western financial firms and/or mega-corporations to buy into a nation's infrastructure or own its national assets. The world needs to put an end to its dependency on Western money because that is essentially where their real power lies.

They have in recent months finally managed to push Moscow to the point where it has no choice but to lessen its economic and financial dependency on the West. Moscow now has no choice but to seek closer relations with non-Western powers like China. And now that President Putin has begun pissing on their global parade, he is "as dangerous as Stalin and a bigger threat than ISIS" - so claim Western officials.I have pointed out on numerous occasions that they are insulated by oceans and protected by allied buffer states. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that they enjoy the luxury of hosting the global reserve currency; they enjoy
the luxury of setting commodities prices; they enjoy the luxury of
setting parameters of international trade; they enjoy the luxury of
setting cultural trends throughout the world; they enjoy the luxury of not
having suffered any "regime changes" in centuries; they enjoy the luxury
of not have suffered under the kind of democracy they impose on others. For over a century the world has
been a playground for their wealthy and a laboratory for their
politicians where they carryout volatile experiments.

Therefore, from their perspective, another war in Europe to stop Russia's growth is actually not a hysterical idea after all.

As
I have said, as long as the political West is not made to suffer
serious repercussions for their actions overseas (i.e. as long as the fires they set don't burn them) they will continue sowing chaos
and bloodshed around the world.Although
the conflict in eastern Ukraine was imposed on Russia by Western interests - and Moscow did
not have the choice of not getting involved - it was nonetheless
predictable from day one that Russia would come on top. Moreover,
similar to how the
war in Georgia awakened the Russian Bear, the war in Novorossiya has done a lot to strengthen Russian resolve
- politically, economically and militarily. Therefore, disregard Western political spin such as - "Russia's economy is shrinking and the Russian Ruble is collapsing" - and consider the following news articles to accurately assess the kind of impact Western sanctions are in fact having on Russia -

With emphasis now finally being
placed on self-reliance and better relations with the East, Moscow today is much better off
than it was before the conflict began. Moreover, Western aggression against
Russia and Russia's reaction to it has given President Putin an aura of a
Warrior Saint amongst Russians and the title of "Putin the great" amongst the Chinese. So much so that President Putin today has an astounding approval rating of nearly 90%! Has there ever been a leader with a higher approval rating? The Russian people, now
galvanized and rallying behind their national flag like never before, have finally come to
understand the true nature of the political West. In fact, President Putin's popularity in Russia has another interesting aspect to it: Anti-American sentiments throughout the Russian Federation has recently been polled
to be as high as 70%. The number of Russians who have an unfavorable
view of the United States today is in fact higher than it was during the
Soviet era. That in itself says a lot.

We are in the midst of Cold War II, as well as perhaps the preliminary stages of World War III. A global conflagration may or may not yet occur. But what remain unmistakeably clear is that the geopolitical landscape of certain strategic areas of the world is definitely being broken apart and divided up and nation-states are being
forced to take sides. Needless to say we know where Armenia's strategic allegiance lies. Needless to say, we also know how this will be viewed by demons in the West and their Armenian lackeys. In other words, we know where all this will lead to come next election cycle in Armenia.

Arevordi

September, 2014

***

The Atlantic Axis and the Making of a War in Ukraine

The war in Ukraine became
predictable when the great Muslim Brotherhood Project in Syria failed
during the summer of 2012. It became unavoidable in December 2012, when
the European Union and Russia failed to agree on the EU’s 3rd Energy
Package. The geopolitical dynamics which are driving the war in Ukraine
were known in the early 1980s.

Hundred years after the
shots in Sarajevo ignited WW I, Europe is again being driven towards
disaster. Hundred years ago the presence of true statesmen could have
prevented the war. Today many of the selected front figures of western
democracies dress up in pilot uniforms while they hardly have the
qualifications needed for a job as flight attendant. The
handling of the tragedy surrounding the crash of Malaysia Airlines
Flight MH17 prompted Malaysian PM Najib Razak to leash out at those
behind the geopolitical chess game that led to the death of the 298 on
board the Boeing 777-200. Showing true statesmanship, PM Najib Razak said:

“As a leader, there has never been an occasion as
heart-breaking as what I went through yesterday. Wives losing their
husbands, fathers losing their children. Imagine their feelings from
such a great loss. … This is what happens when there is a conflict,
whatever conflict that cannot be resolved through negotiations, with
peace. In the end, who becomes the victim”?

The War in Ukraine Began in Libya and Syria.

In 2007 the discovery of the world’s
largest known reserves of natural gas, shared by Qatar and Iran, led to
the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project that was sold under the trade mark
”The Arab Spring”. A joint Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian pipeline
project was supposed to transport Iranian gas from the PARS gas fields
in the Persian Gulf to Syria’s eastern Mediterranean coast and further
on to continental Europe. It was this development that played midwife to
the birth of the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project.

The completion of the Iran – Iraq –
Syria pipeline would have caused a cohort of developments which were
unacceptable to the US, UK, Israel and Qatar. Several continental
European countries, including Germany, Italy, Austria, Czech Republic
saw much more favorably at it. Together with the Russian gas which the
EU received via Ukraine and the North Stream pipeline, the EU would have
been able to cover some 50 percent of its requirements for natural gas
via Iranian and Russian sources.

It would be naive to assume that Israel
was not gravely concerned about the prospect of Iran becoming one of the
European Union’s primary sources of natural gas. Energy security
concerns influence foreign relations and foreign policy. EU – Israeli
relations and the influence Tehran would have attained with regard to
the EU’s position on Palestine and the Middle East are no exception to
that rule.

The US and UK were not interested in
competition to the Nabucco project. Qatar, the main center of gravity
with regard to the international Muslim Brotherhood, eyed its chance to
become a regional power to be recogned with and sent a 10 billion US
dollar check to Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmed Davotoglu. The money was
reportedly earmarked, to be spent on preparing the Syrian Muslim
Brotherhood for the Great Project.

An additional dimension that was
overlooked by many, if not most analysts, was that the US/UK never would
allow Russian – continental European relations to be dominated by an
interdependence that had some 50 percent of continental Europe’s energy
security at its heart. To explain that point, allow me to refer to a
conversation the author has had with a top-NATO admiral from a northern
European country during a day of sailing on a sailing yacht in the early
1980s. Discussing European security issues, out of the reach of curious
ears and microphones he said that (paraphrased):

”American colleagues at the Pentagon
told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow European –
Soviet relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge
the US/UK’s political, economic or military primacy and hegemony on the
European continent. Such a development will be prevented by all
necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe”.

It
is safe to assume that the
discontinuation of the USSR with help of the US and UK has not
significantly changed the principle premises of this doctrine and that
it is still valid today. By 2009 the implementation of the Great Muslim
Brotherhood Project was already in high gear. The former French Foreign
Minister Roland Dumas recalled during an appearance on the French TV Channel LPC in July 2013. (Audio excerpt)

”I’m going to tell you something. I
was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business.
I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were
something in Syria. … This was in Britain, not in America.
Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked
me, although I was no longer Minister of Foreign Affairs, if I would
like to participate. Naturally, I refused, I said I am French, that does
not interest me. …

”This does not make sense. … There
are some sides who have the desire to destroy Arab States, like what
happened in Libya before, particularly given Syria’s special relations
with Russia., …(emphasis added)…That if an agreement is not reached,
then Israel will attack and destroy the governments that stand against
Israel”.

Note Dumas’ reference to Libya. Note
that the statement came after NATO abused UN Security Council Resolution
1973 (2011) on Libya to implement the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project
in that country. The then U.S. Permanent Representative
to NATO Ivo H. Daalder and then NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe and
Commander of the U.S. European Command James G. Stavridis published an
article in the March/April 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs, calling NATO’s
”intervention” in Libya ”A teachable moment and model for future
interventions”.

In June and July 2012 some 20,000 NATO
mercenaries who had been recruited and trained in Libya and then staged
in the Jordanian border town Al-Mafraq, launched two massive campaigns
aimed at seizing the Syrian city of Aleppo. Both campaigns failed and
the ”Libyan Brigade” was literally wiped out by the Syrian Arab Army. It was after this decisive defeat that
Saudi Arabia began a massive campaign for the recruitment of jihadi
fighters via the network of the Muslim Brotherhoods evil twin sister
Al-Qaeda.

The International Crisis Group responded by publishing its report ”Tentative Jihad”.
Washington had to make an attempt to distance itself ”politically” from
the ”extremists”. Plan B, the chemical weapons plan was hedged but it
became obvious that the war on Syria was not winnable anymore. This, and
nothing else was why the British parliament turned down the bombing of
Syria in August 2013.

The war on Ukraine had become predictable
from that point onwards and the timing of the developments in Ukraine
during 2012 and 2013 strongly suggest that plans to overthrow the
Yanukovich government and to aim at a long-term destabilization of
Ukraine were launched after July 2012.

There was one last opportunity to turn
the tide with regards to Ukraine in late 2012, during negotiations about
the European Union’s 3rd Energy Package. Relations between Russia and
the EU were stressed by a primarily British-sponsored initiative within
the EU that was targeting Russia. The ”EU” or UK/US should not accept
that a major energy provider like Russia or Gazprom had the majority
ownership over both the gas and the transportation System.

On 21 December 2012 the leaders of the
27 EU member states and Russia held a summit in Brussels but failed to
resolve the issue. It was from this point onward that the war in Ukraine
had become unavoidable, which means that it was from here on, that
powerful lobbies in the US and UK became hellbent on starting a 4th
generation war in Ukraine. On December 22, 2012, nsnbc published the article ”Russia – E.U. Meeting in Brussels: Risk of Middle East and European War Increased”. The December 2012 article stated

”The sudden pullout of the Ukraine on Tuesday is by
energy insiders with whom the author consulted perceived as yet another
Ukrainian, US and UK backed attempt to force the expansion of NATO and
to drive a wedge between an increased integration of the Russian and
E.U. Economies. As it will become obvious below, it is related to an
aggressive attempt to save the value of the petro dollar”.

By February 9, 2013, relations between
Russia and core NATO members had deteriorated so much over Syria and the
lack of convergence in energy issues, that Russia’s Ambassador to NATO,
Alexander Grutchko said:

”Someone here in Brussels made a
most profound point by saying that if you are holding a hammer, you
should not think that every emerging problem is a nail. We think the
world has ample opportunity to engage in energy cooperation and to
ensure energy security without making use of military-political
organizations as an instrument”.

There
were not many who at that time understood the bearing of the Russian
NATO Ambassador’s words. On February 21, 2014 the Ukrainian
parliament was seized by masked gunmen. The president was removed from
office in a vote held in the presence of gunmen. One of the first
official statements of the new powers at be was that the Russian
language would no longer be accepted as the second official language in
the predominantly Russian speaking eastern regions of Ukraine.

The statement was bound to and didn’t
fail to elicit a response that would tear Ukraine apart. On February 22,
2014, some 3,500 governors from southern and eastern Ukrainian regions
convened in Kharkov and rejected the legality of the putchist parliament
and any of the laws it adopted.

Was the tragedy surrounding MAS Flight
MH17 another Sarajevo moment and will it be used to throw an additional
spanner into attempts to peacefully integrate the Russian and European
economies? After MH17, the EU must act against Putin and stop importing Russian gas
associate senior research fellow at the Centre for European Policy
Studies suggests ”After MH17, the EU must act against Putin and stop
importing Russian gas”.

Dr. Christof Lehmann an
independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and
the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Anglo-Saxon agression against Russia
is taking the form of financial and economic warfare. However, Moscow is
preparing for armed hostilities by developing its agricultural
self-sufficency and multiplying its alliances. For Thierry Meyssan,
after the creation of the caliphate in the Levant, Washington would lay
down a new card in September in Saint Petersburg. The ability of Russia
to maintain its internal stability will determine the course of events.

The
offensive led by Anglo-Saxons (USA, UK and Israel) for world domination
continues on two lines simultaneously: both the creation of the
“Greater Middle East” by attacking simultaneously Iraq, Syria, Lebanon
and Palestine, and separating Russia from the European Union through the
crisis they organized in Ukraine.

In this sprint, it seems that
Washington wants to impose the dollar as the single currency in the gas
market, the energy source of the twenty-first century, the way it
imposed it on the oil1 market.

The Western media hardly
cover the war in Donbass and their population is ignorant of the scale
of the fighting, the US military presence, the number of civilian
casualties, the wave of refugees. On the other hand, Western media have a
delayed reaction to events in North Africa and the Levant, presenting
them either as the result of a so-called “Arab Spring” (that is to say,
in practice, a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood), or as the
destructive effect of a civilization which is inherently violent. More
than ever, it is necessary to help the Arabs who are incapable of living
peacefully in the absence of Western settlers.

Russia is now the leading power capable of leading the resistance to Anglo-Saxon imperialism. It has three tools: BRICS, an alliance of economic rivals who know they can not grow up without one another, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a strategic alliance with China to stabilize Central Asia and finally, the Organization for Collective Security Treaty, a military alliance of former Soviet states.

At
the Fortaleza Summit (Brazil), which was held from 14 to 16 July, BRICS
took the plunge and announced the creation of a monetary reserve fund
(mainly Chinese) and a BRICS Bank as alternatives to the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the dollar system2.

Even before this announcement, the Anglo-Saxons had established their answer: the transformation of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in order to prepare unrest among all Muslim peoples of Russia and China.3
They continued their offensive in Syria and spilled over the borders
both in Iraq and in Lebanon. They failed, however, to expel part of the
Palestinians to Egypt and to destabilize the region even more deeply.
Finally, they keep away from Iran to give President Hassan Rohani a chance to weaken the power of the anti-imperialist Khomeinists.

Two
days after the announcement of the BRICS, the United States accused
Russia of destroying Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over the Donbass,
killing 298 people. On this basis, purely arbitrary, they forced the
Europeans to enter into economic war against Russia. Situating itself as
a court, the Council of the European Union
tried and convicted Russia without any evidence and without giving it
an opportunity to defend itself. The CEU issued “sanctions” against its
financial system.

Recognizing that European leaders are not working
for the interests of their people, but for those of the Anglo-Saxons,
Russia has gnawed at the bit and refrained from going to war in Ukraine.
It supports the insurgents with arms and intelligence, and hosts more
than 500'000 refugees, but declines to send troops into the fray. It
probably will not happen until the vast majority of Ukrainians revolt
against President Poroshenko, even if it does not enter the country until after the fall of the People’s Republic of Donetsk.

Faced
with economic warfare, Moscow has chosen to respond with similar
measures, but in agriculture, not finance. Two considerations guided
this choice: first, short-term, other BRICS can mitigate the
consequences of so-called “sanctions”; on the other hand, medium and
long term, Russia is preparing for war and intends to completely rebuild
its agriculture to go it alone.

Moreover, the Anglo-Saxons have planned to paralyze Russia from within. First by activating, via the Islamic Emirate
(EIS), terrorist groups within its Muslim population, and organizing a
media challenge in the municipal elections of 14 September.4
Large sums of money have been distributed to all opposition candidates
in the thirty largest cities involved, while at least 50'000 Ukrainian
agitators, mixed with refugees, are regrouping in Saint Petersburg. Most
of them have dual Russian citizenship. This is clearly to reproduce at
the provincial level protests that followed the elections in Moscow in
December 2011 – with the addition of violence; and engage the country in
a color revolution process to which certain officials in the ruling
class are favorable.

To do so, Washington has appointed a new ambassador to Russia, John Tefft, who had prepared the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia and the coup in Ukraine. It will be important for President Vladimir Putin to be able to trust his prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, whom Washington hoped to recruit to overthrow him.

Considering
the imminent danger, Moscow would have been able to convince Beijing to
accept the accession of India in exchange for that of Iran (but also
those of Pakistan and Mongolia) to the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization. The decision should be published at the summit in Dushanbe
(Tajikistan) on 12 and 13 September. It should put an end to the
conflict which has opposed India and China for centuries and engage them
in military cooperation.

This reversal, if confirmed, also would
end the honeymoon between New Delhi and Washington who was hoping to
distance India from Russia in particular by giving access to nuclear
technologies. The membership of New Delhi is also a bet on the sincerity
of the new Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, despite the suspicion that he encouraged anti-Muslim violence in 2002 in Gujarat when he was the leading Minister.

In
addition, the accession of Iran, which is a provocation in the face of
Washington, should give the SCO precise knowledge of jihadist movements
and ways to counter them. Again, if confirmed, it would reduce Iran’s
willingness to negotiate a lull with the “Great Satan” that led it to
elect Sheik Hassan Rohani to the presidency. It would be a gamble on the
authority of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Indeed, these memberships would mark the beginning of the shift in the world from the West to the East.5 Still, this trend must be protected militarily. This is the role of the Organization for Collective Security Treaty
(CSTO), formed around Russia, but to which China does not belong.
Unlike NATO, this organization is a classic alliance, consistent with
the Charter of the United Nations since each member retains the option
to leave if it wants. So it is based on this freedom that Washington has
tried in recent months to buy some members, including Armenia. However,
the chaotic situation in Ukraine appears to have cooled those who
dreamed of US “protection”.Tension is likely to increase in the coming weeks.

A reporter asked President Obama on Tuesday if ratcheted sanctions placed on Russia by America and the EU marked “a new Cold War.” The United Kingdom’s Common Defense Committee said Thursday that NATO is unprepared for further aggression from Russia. Roger Cohen of the New York Times has explained in the Atlantic why World War III is not so unimaginable
after all. It has become apparent that Eastern Europe is unstable, and
in a world knit tightly together by technology and treaties, that
instability may prove for everyone inescapable.

It is sobering to think about the repercussions and lessons of the current crisis in Ukraine while Gaza burns, Ebola eats through Africa, North Korea threatens nuclear war, and Pakistan and India sit staring one another down,
fingers poised to wind the doomsday clock, red buttons and key locks
primed for mutually assured destruction. There are many reasons to fear
the future, to see another global total war bring the world to its
knees, and as the world reflects upon the centennial of that first Great War,
let it remember that it turned from single shot to avalanche through
alliances gripping a shrinking world. In NATO and the unrest of Europe’s
east the stage is set once more.

Members of Britain’s parliament have declared that NATO, the
twenty-eight-nation alliance nominally tied to the North Atlantic,
organized in such a way as an attack on one member state is an attack on
every other, has little defense against “ambiguous warfare” from an
opportunistic and aggressive Russia. Should Putin’s strategy of
proxy-fighters and cyber-warfare, seen vividly in east Ukraine, extend
into a NATO nation—Estonia and Latvia border Russia, and Bulgaria and
Romania are separated from the Bear by only the Black Sea—the treaty
will be tested, and collective defense shall either beckon the world to
war, or breaking under the strain of reality, shatter the balance of
geopolitical power.

Poland houses NATO troops, and in October is supposed to host a series of exercises
by the treaty organization. However, as UK officials have noted, it’s
not a conventional war NATO fears from Russia, at least at first. The
committee has suggested that NATO house a permanent garrison in
“vulnerable” member states—the ones that border Russia. That, and they
have called for NATO countries to clarify whether the kind of support
Russia has lent Ukraine’s separatists should constitute a violation of
the treaty’s Article 5 and warrant military responses from the whole
alliance.

It appears clear that the problem for NATO leaders is
striking the balance between preempting future conflict and escalating
current tensions. Does it discourage or encourage Russian aggression to
line troops on its border and hair-trigger collective self-defense? It
is honestly hard to say. Putin is an opportunistic but careful prince;
who knows how far he feels he can push the West? Would NATO states be
only bluffing? The West is war weary and apathetic; America and Northern
Europe care little for the taste of martial glory. That is something
Britain’s MPs fear is far too likely, that NATO lacks sufficient
“political will” to follow through on any promises it makes.

These
days the road to hell, or world war in a nuclear age, seems smoothly
paved indeed. The temptation to complacency and appeasement may prove
stronger than integrity and treaty, but should that prove the case then
have we only traded one forerunner for a second? Only God and time will
tell. Let us pray for peace.

Instability in Ukraine, chaos in Syria, conflict in the East China Sea—the trigger points for World War III are in place. Pessimism is a useful prism through
which to view the affairs of states. Their ambition to gain, retain, and
project power is never sated. Optimism, toward which Americans are
generally inclined, leads to rash predictions of history’s ending in
global consensus and the banishment of war. Such rosy views accompanied
the end of the Cold War. They were also much in evidence a century ago,
on the eve of World War I.

Then, as now, Europe had lived through a long period of relative
peace, after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Then, too, rapid progress
in science, technology, and communications had given humanity a sense of
shared interests that precluded war, despite the ominous naval
competition between Britain and Germany. Then, too, wealthy individuals
devoted their fortunes to conciliation and greater human understanding.
Rival powers fumed over provocative annexations, like Austria-Hungary’s
of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908, but world leaders scarcely believed a
global conflagration was possible, let alone that one would begin just
six years later. The very monarchs who would consign tens of millions to
a murderous morass from 1914 to 1918 and bury four empires believed
they were clever enough to finesse the worst.

The unimaginable can occur. That is a notion at once banal and
perennially useful to recall. Indeed, it has just happened in Crimea,
where a major power has forcefully changed a European border for the
first time since 1945. Russia’s act of annexation and its evident
designs on eastern Ukraine constitute a reminder that NATO was created to protect Europe after its pair of 20th-century self-immolations. NATO’s
core precept, as the Poles and other former vassals of the Soviet
empire like to remind blithe western Europeans, is Article 5, by which
the Allies agreed that “an armed attack against one or more of them in
Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,”
triggering a joint military response. This has proved a powerful
deterrent against potential adversaries. Vladimir Putin, the Russian
president, has been most aggressive in the no-man’s-lands of Georgia and
Ukraine, nations suspended between East and West, neither one a member
of NATO. Had Ukraine been a member of NATO,
the annexation of Crimea would have come only at the (presumably
unacceptable) price of war. Article 5, until demonstrated otherwise, is
an ironclad commitment.

When a 19-year-old Bosnian Serb nationalist, Gavrilo Princip,
assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne in Sarajevo, on
June 28, 1914, he acted to secure Serbia’s liberty from imperial
dominion. He could not have known that within weeks, Austria-Hungary
would declare war on Serbia, goading Russia (humiliated in war a decade
earlier by Japan) to mobilize in defense of its Slavic ally, which
caused the kaiser’s ascendant Germany to launch a preemptive attack on
Russia’s ally France, in turn prompting Britain to declare war on
Germany.

Events cascade. It is already clear that the nationalist fervor
unleashed by Putin after a quarter century of Russia’s perceived
post–Cold War decline is far from exhausted. Russians are sure that the
dignity of their nation has been trampled by an American and European
strategic advance to their border dressed up in talk of democracy, the
rule of law, and human rights. Whether this is true is irrelevant; they
believe it. National humiliation, real or not, is a tremendous catalyst
for war. That was the case in Germany after the Treaty of Versailles
imposed reparations and territorial concessions; so, too, in Serbia more
than 70 years later, after the breakup of Yugoslavia, a country Serbia
had always viewed as an extension of itself. Russia, convinced of its
lost greatness, is gripped by a Weimar neurosis resembling Germany’s
post–World War I longing for its past stature and power. The
Moscow-backed separatists taking over government buildings in eastern
Ukraine and proclaiming an independent “Donetsk People’s Republic”
demonstrate the virulence of Russian irredentism. Nobody can know where
it will stop. Appetite, as the French say, grows with eating.

Let us indulge in dark
imaginings, then, in the cause of prudence. Here is one possible
scenario: Clashes intensify between Ukrainian government forces and
paramilitary formations organized by Russian fifth columnists. The death
toll rises. The ongoing NATO dispatch of
troops and F‑16s to Poland and the Baltic states, designed as a
deterrence, redoubles anger in Russia—“a great and humble nation
besieged,” a Russian general might declare. The American president,
saying his war-weary country will not seek conflict, imposes sanctions
on the entire Russian oil-and-gas sector. European states dependent on
Russian energy grumble; a former German chancellor working in natural
gas says his country’s interests lie with Moscow. Then, say, an
independence movement of the Russian minority gains momentum in Estonia,
backed with plausible deniability by Moscow’s agents, and announces
support for the Donetsk People’s Republic. A wave of cyberattacks
disables Estonian government facilities, and an Estonian big shot calls
the Russian leader an “imperialist troglodyte trapped in a zero-sum
game.” After an assassination attempt on the Estonian foreign minister
at a rally in the capital, calls grow louder for the American president
to invoke Article 5. He insists that “drawing red lines in the 21st
century is not a useful exercise.”

Let us further imagine that shortly after the president delivers his
speech, in a mysterious coincidence, a Chinese ship runs aground on one
of the uninhabited Senkaku Islands, administered by Japan, in the East
China Sea. China dispatches a small force to what it calls the Diaoyu
Islands “as a protective measure.” Japan sends four destroyers to evict
the Chinese and reminds the American president that he has said the
islands, located near undersea oil reserves, “fall within the scope” of
the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. A Republican
senator, echoing the bellicose mood in Washington, declares that
“Estonia is more than a couple of rocks in the East China Sea” and
demands to know whether “the United States has torn up the treaty
alliances in Europe and Asia that have been the foundation of global
security since 1945.” The president gives China an ultimatum to leave
the Japanese islands or face a military response. He also tells Russia
that another act of secessionist violence in Estonia will trigger NATO
force against Russian troops massed on the Estonian border. Both
warnings are ignored. Chinese and Russian leaders accuse the United
States of “prolonging Cold War hostilities and alliances in pursuit of
global domination.” World War III begins.

It could not happen; of course
it couldn’t. Peace, if not outright pacifism, is now bred in the bones
of Europeans, who contemplate war with revulsion. Europe is politically
and economically integrated. America, after two wars without victory, is
in a period of retrenchment that may last a generation. Wars no longer
happen between big land armies; they are the stuff of pinpoint strikes
by unpiloted drones against jihadist extremists. Putin’s Russia is
opportunistic—it will change the balance of power in Ukraine or Georgia
if it considers the price acceptable—but it is not reckless in countries
under NATO protection. China, with its
watchword of “Harmony,” is focused on its own rising success and
understands the usefulness of the United States as an offsetting Pacific
power able to reassure anxious neighbors like Japan and Vietnam. For
the time being, Beijing will not seek to impose its own version of the
Monroe Doctrine. It will hold nationalism in check even as the Asian
naval arms race accelerates. Unlike in 1914 or 1939, the presence of
large American garrisons in Europe and Asia sustains a tenacious Pax
Americana. The United Nations, for all its cumbersome failings, serves
as the guarantor of last resort against another descent into horror. The
specter of nuclear holocaust is the ultimate deterrent for a
hyperconnected world. Citizens everywhere now have the tools to raise a
cacophony in real time against the sort of folly that, in World War I,
produced the deaths of so many unidentifiable young men “known unto
God,” in Kipling’s immortal phrasing.

Convincing? It would certainly be nice to believe that, as President
Clinton suggested in 1997, great-power territorial politics are a thing
of the past. A new era had dawned, he said, in which “enlightened
self-interest, as well as shared values, will compel countries to define
their greatness in more-constructive ways.” In fact, the realization
that the Russian bear can bite as well as growl is timely. It is a
reminder that a multipolar world in a time of transition, when popular
resentments are rising over joblessness and inequality, is a dangerous
place indeed.

The international system does not look particularly stable. The Cold
War’s bipolar confrontation, despite its crises, was predictable.
Today’s world is not. It features a United States whose power is
dominant but no longer determinant; a one-party China that is a rising
hegemon; an authoritarian Russia giddy on nationalism and the idea of a
restored imperium; and a weak, navel-gazing, blasé Europe whose pursuit
of an ever closer union is on hold and perhaps on the brink of reversal.

Pacifist tendencies in western Europe coexist with views of power
held in Moscow and Beijing that Bismarck or Clausewitz would recognize
instantly. After the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, the UN General
Assembly ratified the concept that governments have a “responsibility to
protect” their citizens from atrocities. But in the face of Syria’s
bloody dismemberment and Ukraine’s cynical dismantlement, idealism of
that kind looks fluffy or simply irrelevant. The Baltic countries are
front-line states once again. The fleeting post–Cold War dream of a zone
of unity and peace stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok has died. As
John Mearsheimer observes in his seminal The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,
“Unbalanced multipolar systems feature the most dangerous distribution
of power, mainly because potential hegemons are likely to get into wars
with all of the other great powers in the system.”

In this context, nothing is more dangerous than American weakness. It
is understandable that the United States is looking inward after more
than a decade of post-9/11 war. But it is also worrying, because the
credibility of American power remains the anchor of global security. The
nation’s mood is not merely a reflection of economic hardship or the
costs of war; it is also determined by the president’s decisions and
rhetoric. There was no American majority for involvement in World War I
or World War II—until the president set out to forge one (helped
decisively in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s case by Pearl Harbor). As Jonathan
Eyal of Britain’s Royal United Services Institute says, “If a president
stands up and says something, he can shift the debate.”

President Obama has made clear he does not believe in military force.
His words spell that out; so does his body language. He asks, after
Iraq and Afghanistan, what force accomplishes. These are fair questions;
the bar must be very high for unleashing military power. But when an
American president marches allies up the hill to defend his “red
line”—as Obama did regarding Syria’s use of chemical weapons—and then
marches them back down again, he does something damaging that the world
does not forget. And when Obama, in response to a recent question about
whether declaring that the United States would protect the Senkaku
Islands risked drawing another “red line,” gives an evasive answer, he
does something so dangerous that his words are worth repeating:

The implication of the question, I think, … is that each and
every time a country violates one of these norms, the United States
should go to war or stand prepared to engage militarily, and if it
doesn’t, then somehow we’re not serious about these norms. Well, that’s
not the case.

If these treaty obligations do not constitute a red line triggering a
U.S. military response—the only way to prove the seriousness of “these
norms”—all bets are off in a world already filled with uncertainties. A
century ago, in the absence of clear lines or rules, it was just this
kind of feel-good hope and baseless trust in the judgment of rival
powers that precipitated catastrophe. But that, it may be said, was
then. The world has supposedly been transformed. But has it? Consider this article in my father’s 1938 high-school yearbook:

The machine has brought men face to face as never before in
history. Paris and Berlin are closer today than neighboring villages
were in the Middle Ages. In one sense distance has been annihilated. We
speed on the wings of the wind and carry in our hands weapons more
dreadful than the lightning … The challenge of the machine is the
greatest opportunity mankind has yet enjoyed. Out of the rush and swirl
of the confusions of our times may yet arise a majestic order of world
peace and prosperity.

Optimism is irrepressible in the human heart—and best mistrusted. Our
world of hyperconnectivity, and the strains and aspirations that
accompany it, is not so novel after all. The ghosts of repetition reside
alongside the prophets of progress. From the “rush and swirl” of 1938
where “distance has been annihilated” would follow in short order the
slaughter of Stalingrad, the mass murder of European Jewry, the
indiscriminate deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the anguish of all
humanity. We should not lightly discard a well-grounded pessimism or the
treaties it has produced.

Chaos reigns and spreads as enraged leaders in the US, Europe and their clients and allies pursue genocidal wars.Mercenary
wars in Syria; Israel’s terror bombing on Gaza; proxy wars in the
Ukraine, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Somalia.Tens
of millions of refugees flee scenes of total destruction. Nothing is
sacred. There are no sanctuaries. Homes, schools, hospitals and entire
families are targeted for destruction.

Chaos by
Design

At the center of
chaos, the wild-eyed President Obama strikes blindly, oblivious of the
consequences, willing to risk a financial debacle or a nuclear war. He
enforces sanctions against Iran; imposes sanctions on Russia; sets up
missile bases five launch minutes from Moscow; sends killer drones
against Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan; arms mercenaries in Syria;
trains and equips Kurds in Iraq and pays for Israel’s savagery against
Gaza.

Nothing works.

The Chaos President is blind to the fact that starving one’s
adversaries does not secure submission: it unites them to resist.
Regime change, imposing proxies by force and subterfuge, can destroy the
social fabric of complex societies: Million of peasants and workers
become uprooted refugees. Popular social movements are replaced by
organized criminal gangs and bandit armies.

Central America, the product of decades of US direct and proxy
military interventions, which prevented the most basic structural
changes, has become a chaotic, unlivable inferno for millions. Tens of
thousands of children flee from their ‘free market’- induced mass
poverty and militarized state and gangster violence. Children refugees
at the US border are arrested in mass, and imprisoned in makeshift
detention camps, subject to psychological, physical and sexual abuse by
officials and guards on the inside. On the outside, these pitiful
children are exposed to the racist hatred of a frightened US public
unaware of the dangers these children are escaping and the US
government’s role in creating these hells.

The US-backed Kiev aviation authorities re-directed international
passenger airlines to fly over war zones bristling with anti-aircraft
missiles while Kiev’s jets bombed the rebellious cities and towns. One
flight was shot down and nearly 300 civilians perished. Immediately an
explosion of accusations from Kiev blaming Russian President Putin
flooded Western media with no real facts to explain the tragedy/crime.
War-crazy President Obama and the slavering prime ministers of the EU
ejaculated ultimatums, threatening to convert Russia into a pariah
state. ‘Sanctions, sanctions, everywhere . . . but first… France must
complete its $1.5 billion sale to the Russian navy.’ And the City of
London exempts the Russian oligarchs from the ‘sanctions’, embedded as
they are in London’s money-laundering, parasitical FIRE (Fire, Insurance
and Real Estate) economy. The Cold War has returned and has taken an
ugly turn… with exceptions…for business.

Confrontation among nuclear powers is imminent: And the maniacal
Baltic States and Poland bray the loudest for war with Russia, oblivious
to their positions on the front lines of incineration…

Each day Israel’s war machine chews up more bodies of Gaza’s children
while spitting out more lies. Cheering Israeli Jews perch on their
fortified hills to celebrate each missile strike on the apartments and
schools in the densely populated Shejaiya neighborhood of besieged Gaza.
A group of orthodox and secular entrepreneurs in Brooklyn have
organized group tours to visit the Holy Sites by day and enjoy the Gaza
pyrotechnics by night . . . night goggles to view the fleeing mothers
and burning children are available at a small extra charge…

Again the US Senate votes unanimously in support of Israel’s latest
campaign of mass murder – no crime is depraved enough to ruffle the
scruples of America’s leaders. They hew close to a script from the 52
Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations. Together they
embrace a Beast from the Apocalypse gnawing on the flesh and bones of
Palestine.

But, Sacre Bleu! France’s Zionists have prevailed on the
‘President-Socialiste’ Hollande. Paris bans all anti-Israel
demonstrations despite the clear reports of genocide. Demonstrators
supporting the Gazan resistance are gassed and assaulted by special riot
police – ‘Socialist’ Hollande serves the demands of powerful Zionist
organizations while trashing his country’s republican traditions and its
sacred ‘Rights of Man’. The young protestors of Paris fought back with barricades and paving
stones in the finest traditions of the Paris Commune waving the flags of
a free Palestine. Not a single ‘red banner’ was in sight: The French
‘left’ were under their beds or off on vacation.

There
are ominous signs away from the killing fields. The stock
market is rising while the economy stagnates. Wild speculators have
returned in their splendor widening the gap between the fictitious and
real economy before the ‘deluge’, the chaos of another inevitable crash.
In industrial America’s once great Detroit, clean water is shut-off
to tens of thousands of poor citizens unable to pay for basic
services. In the midst of summer, urban families are left to defecate
in hallways, alleyways and empty lots. Without water the toilets are
clogged, children are not washed. Roscoe, the master plumber, says the
job is way beyond him.

According to our famed economists, the economy of Detroit is
‘recovering . . . profits are up, it’s only the people who are
suffering’. Productivity has doubled, speculators are satisfied;
pensions are slashed and wages are down; but the Detroit Tigers are in
first place.

Public hospitals everywhere are being closed. In the Bronx and
Brooklyn, emergency rooms are overwhelmed. Chaos! Interns work 36 hour
shifts . . . and the sick and injured take their chances with a
sleep-deprived medic. Meanwhile, in Manhattan, private clinics and
‘boutique’ practices for the elite proliferate.

Scandinavians have embraced the putschist power grab in Kiev. The
Swedish Foreign Minister Bildt bellows for a new Cold War with Russia.
The Danish emissary and NATO leader, Rasmussen, salivates obscenely at
the prospect of bombing and destroying Syria in a replay of NATO’s
‘victory’ over Libya. The German leaders endorse the ongoing Israeli genocide against Gaza;
they are comfortably protected from any moral conscience by their
nostalgic blanket of ‘guilt’ over Nazi crimes 70 years ago.

Saudi-funded Jihadi terrorists in Iraq showed their “infinite mercy”
by… merely driving thousands of Christians from ancient Mosul. Nearly
2,000 years of a continuous Christian presence was long enough! At
least most escaped with their heads still attached.

Chaos Everywhere

Over one hundred thousand agents of the US National Security Agency
are paid to spy on two million Muslim citizens and residents in the
USA. But for all the tens of billions of dollars spent and tens of
millions of conversations recorded, Islamic charities are prosecuted and
philanthropic individuals are framed in ‘sting operations’.

Where the bombs fall no one knows, but people flee. Millions are fleeing the chaos.

But there is no place to go! The French invade half a dozen African
countries but the refugees are denied refuge in France. Thousands die
in the desert or drown crossing the Med. Those who do make it, are
branded criminals or relegated to ghettos and camps. Chaos reigns in Africa, the Middle East, Central America and
Detroit. The entire US frontier with Mexico has become a militarized
detention center, a multi-national prison camp. The border is
unrecognizable to our generation.

Chaos reigns in Israel. War-obsessed Israelis discover that the
Chosen People of God can also bleed and die, lose limbs and eyes in the
alleyways of Gaza where poorly armed boys and men stand their ground.
When the cheers turn to jeers, will they re-elect Bibi, their current
kosher butcher? The overseas brethren, the fundraisers, the lobbyists
and the armchair verbal assassins will automatically embrace some new
face, without questions, regrets or (god forbid!) self-criticism –if
it’s ‘good for Israel and the Jews’ it’s got to be right!

Chaos reigns in New York. Judicial rulings favor the pirates and
their vulture funds demanding one-thousand percent returns on old
Argentine bonds. If Argentina rejects this financial blackmail and
defaults, shock waves will ripple throughout global financial markets.
Creditors will tremble in uncertainty: Fears will grow over a new
financial crash. Will they squeeze out another trillion-dollar bailout?

But where’s the money? Printing presses are working day and night.
There are only a few life boats . . . enough for the bankers and Wall
Street, the other ninety-nine percent will have to swim or feed the
sharks.

The corrupted financial press now advises warlords on which country
to bomb and politicians on how to impose economic sanctions; they no
longer provide sound economic information or advise investors on
markets. Their editorial rants will incite an investor flight to buy
king-sized mattresses for stuffing as the banks fail.

The US President is on the verge of a mental breakdown: He’s a liar
of Munchausen proportions with a bad case of political paranoia, war
hysteria and megalomania. He’s gone amok, braying, ‘I lead the world:
its US leadership or chaos’. Increasingly the world has another
message: ‘It’s the US and chaos.’

Wall Street is abandoning him. The Russians have double-crossed
him. The Chinese merchants are now doing business everywhere we used to
be and we ought to be. They’re playing with loaded dice. The stubborn
Somalis refuse to submit to a Black President: they reject this ‘ML
King with drones’ . . . The Germans suck on their thumbs in total stupor
as Americans monitor and record their every conversation…for their own
safety! “Our corporations are ingrates after all we have done for
them”, the First Black President whines. “They flee from our taxes
while we subsidize their operations!”

Final Solutions: The End of Chaos

The only solution is to move on: Chaos breeds chaos. The President
strives to project his ‘Leadership’. He asks his close advisers very
hard questions: “Why can’t we bomb Russia, just like Israel bombs
Gaza? Why don’t we build an ‘Iron Dome’ over Europe and shoot down
Russian nuclear missiles while we fire upon Moscow from our new bases in
Ukraine? Which countries will our ‘Dome’ protect? I am sure that the
people of East Europe and the Baltic States will gladly make the supreme
sacrifice. After all, their leaders were at the very front frothing
for a war with Russia. Their reward, a nuclear wasteland, will be a
small price to ensure our success!”

The
Zionist lobby will insist our ‘Iron Dome’ covers Israel. But the
Saudis may try to bribe the Russians to spare the oil fields as Moscow
targets the US missile bases near Mecca. Our radio-active allies in the
Middle East will just have to relocate to a new Holy Land. Do Obama and
his advisers imagine reducing the Asian population by a
billion or two? Do they plan several hundred Hiroshimas because the
Chinese crossed the President’s ‘red lines’: China’s economy and trade
grew too fast, expanded too far, it was too competitive, too competent,
too successful at gaining market shares, and they ignored our warnings
and our unparalleled military might.

Most of Asia will inhale nuclear dust, millions
of Indians and
Indonesians will perish as collateral damage. Their survivors will
feast on ‘radiated fish’ in a glowing sea.

Beyond Chaos: The New American Way:

Because our ‘Iron Dome’ will have failed us, we will have
to re-emerge out of toxic ashes and crawl from our bunkers, dreaming of
a New America free from wars and poverty. The Reign of Chaos will have
ended. The ‘peace and order’ of the graveyard will reign supreme.

The emperors will be forgotten. And we never will have found out who fired that missile at the doomed
Malaysian airliner with its 300 passengers and crew. We will have lost
count of the thousands of Palestinian parents and children slaughtered
in Gaza by the Chosen People of Israel. We will not know how the
sanctions against Russia panned out.

“Going After” the Islamic State. Guess Who is Behind the Caliphate Project?

The Islamic State (IS) is portrayed as an Enemy of America and the Western world. With the support of America’s indefectible British ally,
President Barack Obama has ordered a series of US bombing raids on Iraq
allegedly with a view to defeating the rebel army of the Islamic State
(IS). “We will not waver in our determination to confront the Islamic State … If terrorists think we will weaken in the face of their threats they could not be more wrong.” (Barack Obama and David Cameron, Strengthening the NATO alliance, op ed published in the London Times, September 4, 2014, emphasis added)

But Who is behind the Islamic State Project?

In a bitter irony, until recently the rebels of the Islamic State,
formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) were
heralded as Syria’s “opposition freedom fighters” committed to
“restoring democracy” and unseating the secular government of Bashar al
Assad. And who was behind the jihadist insurgency in Syria?

Those
who ordered the bombing campaign are those who are behind the Caliphate
Project. The Islamic State (IS) militia, which is currently the
alleged target of a US-NATO bombing campaign under a
“counter-terrorism” mandate, was and continues to be supported covertly
by the United States and its allies.

In other words, the Islamic State (IS) is a creation of US intelligence
with the support of Britain’s MI6, Israel’s Mossad, Pakistan’s
Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Saudi Arabia’s General
Intelligence Presidency (GIP), Ri’āsat Al-Istikhbārāt Al-’Āmah ( رئاسة
الاستخبارات العامة‎). Moreover, according to Israeli intelligence
sources (Debka) NATO in liaison with the Turkish High Command has been
involved in the recruitment of jihadist mercenaries from the outset of
the Syrian crisis in March 2011.

In relation to the Syrian insurgency, the Islamic State
fighters together with the Al Qaeda affiliated jihadist forces of the Al
Nusrah Front are the foot soldiers of the Western military alliance.
They are covertly supported by US-NATO-Israel. Their mandate is to
wage a terrorist insurgency against the government of Bashar al-Assad.
The atrocities committed by Islamic State fighters in Iraq are similar
to those committed in Syria. As a result of media disinformation, Western public opinion is
unaware that the Islamic State terrorists have from the very outset been
supported by the United States and its allies.

The killings of innocent civilians by the Islamic State terrorists in
Iraq are used to create a pretext and a justification for US military
intervention on humanitarian grounds. The bombing raids ordered by
Obama, however, are not intended to eliminate the Islamic State, which
constitutes a US “intelligence asset”. Quite the opposite, the US is
targeting the civilian population as well as the Iraqi resistance
movement.

The Role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar

Amply documented, US-NATO support to the Islamic State is channeled
covertly through America’s staunchest allies: Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Acknowledged by the Western media, both Riyadh and Doha acting in
liaison and on behalf of Washington have played (and continue to play) a
central role in the financing the Islamic State (IS) as well as the
recruitment, training and religious indoctrination of terrorist
mercenary forces deployed in Syria. According to London’s Daily Express “They [the Islamic State terrorists] had money and arms supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.”

“The most important source of ISIS financing to date has
been support coming out of the Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia but
also Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates,” (According to Dr.
Günter Meyer, Director of the Center for Research into the Arabic World
at University of Mainz, Germany, Deutsche Welle)

This money was channeled to ISIS terrorists fighting against government forces in Syria:

“Through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West [has] supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al‑Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)

…[M]eet Saudi Arabia’s latest monstrous contribution to world history: the Islamist Sunni caliphate of Iraq and the Levant,
conquerors of Mosul and Tikrit – and Raqqa in Syria – and possibly
Baghdad, and the ultimate humiliators of Bush and Obama. From Aleppo in
northern Syria almost to the Iraqi-Iranian border, the
jihadists of Isis and sundry other groupuscules paid by the Saudi
Wahhabis – and by Kuwaiti oligarchs – now rule thousands of square
miles. (Robert Fisk, The Independent, June 12, 2014)

In
2013, as part of its recruitment of terrorists, Saudi Arabia took
the initiative of releasing prisoners on death row in Saudi jails. A
secret memo revealed that the prisoners were being “recruited” to
join jihadist militia (including Al Nusrah and ISIS) to fight against
government forces in Syria.Saudi prison

The prisoners had reportedly been
offered a deal — stay and be executed or fight against Assad in Syria.
As part of the deal the prisoners were offered a “pardon and a monthly
stipend for their families, who were allowed to stay in the Sunni Arab
kingdom”. Saudi officials apparently gave them a choice: decapitation or jihad?
In total, inmates from Yemen, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria,
Jordan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, and Kuwait chose to
go and fight in Syria.(See Global Research, September 11, 2013)

“Volte Face”: About Turn

On September 11, 2014, coinciding with the commemoration of 9/11, the
King of Saudi Arabia together with the Monarchs of the Gulf States
announced their unbending commitment to support Obama’s holy war against
the Islamic State (IS), which has and continues to be funded by Qatari
and Saudi money as part of a carefully engineered intelligence
operation.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry,
left, speaks with Joseph W. Westphal, the U.S. ambassador to Saudi
Arabia, and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal on his arrival
at the King Abdulaziz International Airport in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia on
Sept. 11, 2014. (Pool photo by Brendan Smialowski via Associated Press)

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States which actively contributed to the
financing of the Islamic State, not to mention the recruitment, training
of terrorists on behalf of Washington, pledged their unbending support
for Obama’s military campaign to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the
Islamic State. The statement of support contained in the communiqué, commits the
“leading Arab states to working with the U.S. to cut off the flow of
foreign fighters and funds to the Islamic State.” It also confirms that
members discussed “a strategy to destroy the ISIL wherever it is,
including in both Iraq and Syria.”

Saudi Arabia has come to understand the Islamic State group is a serious threat to their country as well–
that it isn’t a mainstream Sunni movement.One element of Obama’s IS
plan seeks to undermine the ideological and religious claims that the
Islamic State militants make to Islam. The administration hopes Riyadh
will use its influence among Islamic religious leaders. (Voice of
America, September 11, 2014)

Recruiting “Moderate Terrorists”

As part of the agreement, the House of Saud is to “host a training
facility for thousands of Syrian rebel fighters who are combating both
the Islamic State and President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.” An absurd and
fake proposition. Until September 9th, “officially” Saudi Arabia had
been supporting the Islamic State against the government of Bashar al
Assad and now it has been entrusted in recruiting jihadists to fight the
Islamic State. An absurd and fake proposition. But the media has
failed to connect the dots and uncover the big lie.

We are dealing with a diabolical project: The architects of
the Islamic State have informed the World that they are “going after”
their own terrorists as part of a counter-terrorism operation.

While these actions are undertaken under the banner of the “Global
War on Terrorism”, the US has no intention to target its IS own terror
brigades which are integrated by Western special forces and intelligence
operatives. In fact the only meaningful and effective campaign against
Islamic State terrorists is being waged by Syrian government forces.

Needless to say, US, NATO, Saudi and Qatari support and funding to
the Islamic State will continue. The objective is not to destroy the
Islamic State as promised by Obama. What we are dealing with is a US
sponsored process of destabilizing and destroying both Iraq and Syria.
The campaign against the Islamic State is being used as a justification
to bomb both countries, largely targeting civilians.

The
endgame is to destabilize Iraq as a nation state and trigger its
partition into three separate entities. The broader US-NATO strategic
objective is to destabilize the entire
Middle East- North Africa -Central Asia -South Asia region, including
Iran, Pakistan and India.

How far is Saudi Arabia complicit in the Isis takeover of much of
northern Iraq, and is it stoking an escalating Sunni-Shia conflict
across the Islamic world? Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin
Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of
Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous
conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service,
MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: "The time is not far
off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally 'God help the
Shia'. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them."

The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for
many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it
about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria. Since the
capture of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) on
10 June, Shia women and children have been killed in villages south of
Kirkuk, and Shia air force cadets machine-gunned and buried in mass
graves near Tikrit.

In Mosul, Shia shrines and mosques have been
blown up, and in the nearby Shia Turkoman city of Tal Afar 4,000 houses
have been taken over by Isis fighters as "spoils of war". Simply to be
identified as Shia or a related sect, such as the Alawites, in Sunni
rebel-held parts of Iraq and Syria today, has become as dangerous as
being a Jew was in Nazi-controlled parts of Europe in 1940.

There
is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar,
secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and
head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two
years when al-Qa'ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition
in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last
week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the
significance of Prince Bandar's words, saying that they constituted "a
chilling comment that I remember very well indeed".

He does not
doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in
Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind
eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of
Iraq. He said: "Such things simply do not happen spontaneously." This
sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni
majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and
would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan

Dearlove's explosive revelation about the prediction of a day of
reckoning for the Shia by Prince Bandar, and the former head of MI6's
view that Saudi Arabia is involved in the Isis-led Sunni rebellion, has
attracted surprisingly little attention. Coverage of Dearlove's speech
focused instead on his main theme that the threat from Isis to the West
is being exaggerated because, unlike Bin Laden's al-Qa'ida, it is
absorbed in a new conflict that "is essentially Muslim on Muslim".
Unfortunately, Christians in areas captured by Isis are finding this is
not true, as their churches are desecrated and they are forced to flee. A
difference between al-Qa'ida and Isis is that the latter is much better
organised; if it does attack Western targets the results are likely to
be devastating.

The forecast by Prince Bandar, who was at the
heart of Saudi security policy for more than three decades, that the 100
million Shia in the Middle East face disaster at the hands of the Sunni
majority, will convince many Shia that they are the victims of a
Saudi-led campaign to crush them. "The Shia in general are getting very
frightened after what happened in northern Iraq," said an Iraqi
commentator, who did not want his name published. Shia see the threat as
not only military but stemming from the expanded influence over
mainstream Sunni Islam of Wahhabism, the puritanical and intolerant
version of Islam espoused by Saudi Arabia that condemns Shia and other
Islamic sects as non-Muslim apostates and polytheists.

Dearlove says that he has no inside knowledge obtained since
he retired as head of MI6 10 years ago to become Master of Pembroke
College in Cambridge. But, drawing on past experience, he sees Saudi
strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or
attitudes. First, they are convinced that there "can be no legitimate or
admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials
as guardians of Islam's holiest shrines". But, perhaps more
significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi
belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be
"deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge
Shia-dom".

Western governments traditionally play down the
connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one
hand, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden
and al-Qa'ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's Isis. There is nothing
conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11
hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors
who funded the operation.

The
difference between al-Qa'ida and Isis can be overstated: when Bin Laden
was killed by United States forces in 2011, al-Baghdadi released a
statement eulogising him, and Isis pledged to launch 100 attacks in
revenge for his death.

But there has always been a second theme to
Saudi policy towards al-Qa'ida type jihadis, contradicting Prince
Bandar's approach and seeing jihadis as a mortal threat to the Kingdom.
Dearlove illustrates this attitude by relating how, soon after 9/11, he
visited the Saudi capital Riyadh with Tony Blair.

He remembers the
then head of Saudi General Intelligence "literally shouting at me
across his office: '9/11 is a mere pinprick on the West. In the medium
term, it is nothing more than a series of personal tragedies. What these
terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud and remake the Middle
East.'" In the event, Saudi Arabia adopted both policies, encouraging
the jihadis as a useful tool of Saudi anti-Shia influence abroad but
suppressing them at home as a threat to the status quo. It is this dual
policy that has fallen apart over the last year.

Saudi sympathy
for anti-Shia "militancy" is identified in leaked US official documents.
The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009
in a cable released by Wikileaks that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical
financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba
in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups." She said that, in so far as
Saudi Arabia did act against al-Qa'ida, it was as a domestic threat and
not because of its activities abroad. This policy may now be changing
with the dismissal of Prince Bandar as head of intelligence this year.
But the change is very recent, still ambivalent and may be too late: it
was only last week that a Saudi prince said he would no longer fund a
satellite television station notorious for its anti-Shia bias based in
Egypt.

The Sunni Ahmed al-Rifai shrine near Tal Afar is bulldozed

The
problem for the Saudis is that their attempts since Bandar lost his job
to create an anti-Maliki and anti-Assad Sunni constituency which is
simultaneously against al-Qa'ida and its clones have failed. By
seeking to weaken Maliki and Assad in the interest of a more moderate
Sunni faction, Saudi Arabia and its allies are in practice playing into
the hands of Isis which is swiftly gaining full control of the Sunni
opposition in Syria and Iraq. In Mosul, as happened previously in its
Syrian capital Raqqa, potential critics and opponents are disarmed,
forced to swear allegiance to the new caliphate and killed if they
resist.

The West may have to pay a price for its alliance with
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, which have always found Sunni
jihadism more attractive than democracy. A striking example of double
standards by the western powers was the Saudi-backed suppression of
peaceful democratic protests by the Shia majority in Bahrain in March
2011. Some 1,500 Saudi troops were sent across the causeway to the
island kingdom as the demonstrations were ended with great brutality and
Shia mosques and shrines were destroyed.

An alibi used by the US
and Britain is that the Sunni al-Khalifa royal family in Bahrain is
pursuing dialogue and reform. But this excuse looked thin last week as
Bahrain expelled a top US diplomat, the assistant secretary of state for
human rights Tom Malinowksi, for meeting leaders of the main Shia
opposition party al-Wifaq. Mr Malinowski tweeted that the Bahrain
government's action was "not about me but about undermining dialogue".

Iraqi leader al-Maliki

Western powers and their regional allies have largely escaped criticism
for their role in reigniting the war in Iraq. Publicly and privately,
they have blamed the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for
persecuting and marginalising the Sunni minority, so provoking them into
supporting the Isis-led revolt. There is much truth in this, but it is
by no means the whole story. Maliki did enough to enrage the Sunni,
partly because he wanted to frighten Shia voters into supporting him in
the 30 April election by claiming to be the Shia community's protector
against Sunni counter-revolution.

But for all his gargantuan
mistakes, Maliki's failings are not the reason why the Iraqi state is
disintegrating. What destabilised Iraq from 2011 on was the revolt of
the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt by jihadis, who were
often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab
Emirates. Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking
to close down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it
inevitable that the conflict in Iraq would restart. "I guess they just
didn't believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar
al-] Assad," said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.

Of course,
US and British politicians and diplomats would argue that they were in
no position to bring an end to the Syrian conflict. But this is
misleading. By insisting that peace negotiations must be about the
departure of Assad from power, something that was never going to happen
since Assad held most of the cities in the country and his troops were
advancing, the US and Britain made sure the war would continue.

The
chief beneficiary is Isis which over the last two weeks has been
mopping up the last opposition to its rule in eastern Syria. The Kurds
in the north and the official al-Qa'ida representative, Jabhat al-Nusra,
are faltering under the impact of Isis forces high in morale and using
tanks and artillery captured from the Iraqi army. It is also, without
the rest of the world taking notice, taking over many of the Syrian oil
wells that it did not already control.

The Shia Al-Qubba Husseiniya mosque in Mosul explodes

Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein's monster over which it is
rapidly losing control. The same is true of its allies such as Turkey
which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping
the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open. As Kurdish-held border
crossings fall to Isis, Turkey will find it has a new neighbour of
extraordinary violence, and one deeply ungrateful for past favours from
the Turkish intelligence service.

As for Saudi Arabia, it may come
to regret its support for the Sunni revolts in Syria and Iraq as jihadi
social media begins to speak of the House of Saud as its next target.
It is the unnamed head of Saudi General Intelligence quoted by Dearlove
after 9/11 who is turning out to have analysed the potential threat to
Saudi Arabia correctly and not Prince Bandar, which may explain why the
latter was sacked earlier this year.

Nor is this the only point on
which Prince Bandar was dangerously mistaken. The rise of Isis is bad
news for the Shia of Iraq but it is worse news for the Sunni whose
leadership has been ceded to a pathologically bloodthirsty and
intolerant movement, a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, which has no aim but
war without end.

The Sunni caliphate rules a large, impoverished
and isolated area from which people are fleeing. Several million Sunni
in and around Baghdad are vulnerable to attack and 255 Sunni prisoners
have already been massacred. In the long term, Isis cannot win, but its
mix of fanaticism and good organisation makes it difficult to dislodge.

"God
help the Shia," said Prince Bandar, but, partly thanks to him, the
shattered Sunni communities of Iraq and Syria may need divine help even
more than the Shia.

Paul Craig Roberts: Will Russia and China Hold Their Fire Until War Is the Only Alternative?

Obama’s September 24 speech at the UN is the most absurd thing I have
heard in my entire life. It is absolutely amazing that the president
of the United States would stand before the entire world and tell what
everyone knows are blatant lies while simultaneously demonstrating
Washington’s double standards and belief that Washington alone, because
the US is exceptional and indispensable, has the right to violate all
law. It is even more amazing that every person present did not get up and walk out of the assembly. The diplomats of the world actually sat there and listened to blatant
lies from the world’s worst terrorist. They even clapped their
approval.

The rest of the speech was just utter bullshit: “We stand at a
crossroads,” “signposts of progress,” “reduced chance of war between
major powers,” “hundreds of millions lifted from poverty,” and while
ebola ravages Africa “we’ve learned how to cure disease and harness the
power of the wind and the sun.” We are now God. “We” is comprised of
the “exceptional people”–Americans. No one else counts. “We” are it. It is impossible to pick the most absurd statement in Obama’s speech
or the most outrageous lie. Is it this one? “Russian aggression in
Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in
pursuit of territorial ambition.”

Or is it this one? “After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular
protests and calls for reform, their corrupt president fled. Against
the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured
arms into eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict
that has killed thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from
areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the
crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its
territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the
separatists, and moved troops across the border.”

The entire world knows that Washington overthrew the elected
Ukrainian government, that Washington refuses to release its satellite
photos of the destruction of the Malaysian airliner, that Ukraine
refuses to release its air traffic control instructions to the airliner,
that Washington has prevented a real investigation of the airliner’s
destruction, that European experts on the scene have testified that both
sides of the airliner’s cockpit demonstrate machine gun fire, an
indication that the airliner was shot down by the Ukrainian jets that
were following it. Indeed, there has been no explanation why Ukrainian
jets were close on the heels of an airliner directed by Ukrainian air
traffic control.

The entire world knows that if Russia had territorial ambitions, when
the Russian military defeated the American trained and supplied
Georgian army that attacked South Ossetia, Russia would have kept
Georgia and reincorporated it within Russia where it resided for
centuries.

Notice that it is not aggression when Washington bombs and invades
seven countries in 13 years without a declaration of war. Aggression
occurs when Russia accepts the petition of Crimeans who voted 97 percent
in favor of reuniting with Russia where Crimea resided for centuries
before Khrushchev attached it to the Soviet Socialist Republic of
Ukraine in 1954 when Ukraine and Russia were part of the same country.

And the entire world knows that, as the separatist leader of the
Donetsk Republic said, “If Russian military units were fighting with us,
the news would not be the fall of Mariupol but the fall of Kiev and
Lviv.”

Which is “the cancer of violent extremism”–ISIS which cut off the
heads of four journalists, or Washington which has bombed seven
countries in the 21st century murdering hundreds of thousands of
civilians and displacing millions? Who is the worst terrorist–ISIS, a group that is redrawing the
artificial boundaries created by British and French colonialists, or
Washington with its Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign policy,
which declares Washington’s dominant objective to be US hegemony over
the world?

ISIS is the creation of Washington. ISIS consists of the jihadists
Washington used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent to Syria to
overthrow Assad. If ISIS is a “network of death,” a “brand of evil”
with which negotiation is impossible as Obama declares, it is a network
of death created by the Obama regime itself. If ISIS poses the threat
that Obama claims, how can the regime that created the threat be
credible in leading the fight against it?

Obama never mentioned in his speech the central problem that the
world faces. That problem is Washington’s inability to accept the
existence of strong independent countries such as Russia and China. The
neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine commits the United States to
maintaining its status as the sole Unipower. This task requires
Washington “to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose
resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate
global power.” A “hostile power” is any country that has sufficient
power or influence to be able to limit Washington’s exercise of power.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine explicitly targets Russia: “Our first
objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the
territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere.” A “rival” is
defined as any country capable of defending its interests or those of
allies against Washington’s hegemony.

In his speech, Obama told Russia and China that they can be part of
Washington’s world order on the condition that they accept Washington’s
hegemony and do not interfere in any way with Washington’s control.
When Obama tells Russia that the US will cooperate with Russia “if
Russia changes course,” Obama means that Moscow must accept the primacy
of Washington’s interest over Russia’s own interest. Clearly, this is an inflexible and unrealistic position. If Washington keeps to it, war with Russia and China will ensue.

Obama told China that Washington intended to continue to be a Pacific
power in China’s sphere of influence, “promoting peace, stability, and
the free flow of commerce among nations” by building new US air and
naval bases from the Philippines to Vietnam so that Washington can
control the flow of resources in the South China Sea and cut off China
at will.

As far as I can tell, neither the Russian nor Chinese governments
understand the seriousness of the threat that Washington represents.
Washington’s claim to world hegemony seems too farfetched to Russia and
China to be real. But it is very real. By refusing to take the threat seriously, Russia and China have not
responded in ways that would bring an end to the threat without the
necessity of war.

For example, the Russian government could most likely destroy NATO by
responding to sanctions imposed by Washington and the EU by informing
European governments that Russia does not sell natural gas to members of
NATO. Instead of using this power, Russia has foolishly allowed the EU
to accumulate record amounts of stored natural gas to see homes and
industry through the coming winter.

Has Russia sold out its national interests for money?

Much of Washington’s power and financial hegemony rests on the role
of the US dollar as world reserve currency. Russia and China have been
slow, even negligent from the standpoint of defending their sovereignty,
to take advantage of opportunities to undermine this pillar of
Washington’s power. For example, the BRICS’ talk of abandoning the
dollar payments system has been more talk than action. Russia doesn’t
even require Washington’s European puppet states to pay for Russian
natural gas in rubles.

One might think that a country such as Russia experiencing such
extreme hostility and demonization from the West would at least use the
gas sales to support its own currency instead of Washington’s dollar.
If the Russian government is going to continue to support the economies
of European countries hostile to Russia and to prevent the European
peoples from freezing during the coming winter, shouldn’t Russia in
exchange for this extraordinary subsidy to its enemies at least arrange
to support its own currency by demanding payment in rubles?
Unfortunately for Russia, Russia is infected with Western trained
neoliberal economists who represent Western, not Russian, interests.

When the West sees such extraordinary weakness on the part of the
Russian government, Obama knows he can go to the UN and tell the most
blatant lies about Russia with no cost whatsoever to the US or Europe.
Russian inaction subsidizes Russia’s demonization.

China has been no more successful than Russia in using its
opportunities to destabilize Washington. For example, it is a known
fact, as Dave Kranzler and I have repeatedly demonstrated, that the
Federal Reserve uses its bullion bank agents to knock down the gold
price in order to protect the dollar’s value from the Federal Reserve’s
policies. The method used is for the bullion banks to drive down the
gold price with enormous amounts of naked shorts during periods of low
or nonexistent volume.

China or Russia or both could take advantage of this tactic by
purchasing every naked short sold plus all covered shorts, if any, and
demanding delivery instead of settling the contracts in cash. Neither
New York Comex nor the London market could make delivery, and the system
would implode. The consequence of the failure to deliver possibly
could be catastrophic for the Western financial system, but in the least
it would demonstrate the corrupt nature of Western financial
institutions.

Or China could deal a more lethal blow. Choosing a time of
heightened concern or disruptions in US financial markets, China could
dump its trillion dollar plus holdings of US treasuries, or indeed all
its holdings of US financial instruments, on the market. The Federal
Reserve and the US Treasury could try to stabilize the prices of US
financial instruments by creating money with which to purchase the bonds
and other instruments. This money creation would increase concern
about the dollar’s value, and at that point China could dump the
trillion dollars plus it receives from its bond sales on the exchange
market. The Federal Reserve cannot print foreign currencies with which
to buy up the dollars. The dollar’s exchange value would collapse and
with it the dollar’s use as world reserve currency. The US would become
just another broke country unable to pay for its imports.

Possibly, Washington could get Japan and the European Central Bank to
print enough yen and euros to buy up the dumped dollars. However, the
likelihood is that this would bring down the yen and euro along with the
dollar. Flight would occur into the Chinese and Russian currencies, and financial hegemony would depart the West.

By their restraint, Russia and China enable Washington’s attack upon
them. Last week Washington put thousands of its NGO operatives into the
Moscow streets protesting “Putin’s war against Ukraine.” Foolishly,
Russia has permitted foreign interests to buy up its newspapers, and
these interests continually denounce Putin and the Russian government to
their Russian readers. Did Russia sell its soul and communication system for dollars? Did a
few oligarchs sell out Russia for Swiss and London bank deposits?

Both Russia and China have Muslim populations among whom the CIA
operates encouraging disassociation, rebellion, and violence.
Washington intends to break up the Russian Federation into smaller,
weaker countries that could not stand in the way of Washington’s
hegemony. Russian and Chinese fear of discord among their own Muslim
populations have caused both governments to make the extremely serious
strategic mistake of aligning with Washington against ISIS and with
Washington’s policy of protecting Washington’s status quo in the Muslim
world.

If Russia and China understood the deadly threat that Washington
presents, both governments would operate according to the time honored
principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Russia and China
would arm ISIS with surface to air missiles to bring down the American
planes and with military intelligence in order to achieve an American
defeat. With defeat would come the overthrow of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain,
Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and all of the American
puppet rulers in the area. Washington would lose control over oil, and
the petro-dollar would be history. It is extraordinary that instead
Russia and China are working to protect Washington’s control over the
Middle East and the petro-dollar.

China is subject to a variety of attacks. The Rockefeller Foundation
creates American agents in Chinese universities, or so I am informed by
Chinese academics. American companies that locate in China create
Chinese boards on which they place the relatives of local and regional
party officials. This shifts loyalty from the central government to the
American money. Moreover, China has many economists educated in the US
who are imbued with the neoliberal economics that represents
Washington’s interests.

Both Russia and China have significant percentages of their
populations who wish to be western. The failure of communism in both
countries and the success of American cold war propaganda have created
loyalties to America in place of their own governments. In Russia they
go by the designation “Atlanticist Integrationists.” They are Russians
who wish to be integrated into the West. I know less about the Chinese
counterpart, but among youth Western materialism and lack of sexual
restraint is appealing.

The inability of the Russian and Chinese governments to come to terms
with the threat posed to their existence as sovereign countries by the
neoconservative insistence on American world hegemony makes nuclear war
more likely. If Russia and China catch on too late in the game, their
only alternative will be war or submission to Washington’s hegemony. As
there is no possibility of the US and NATO invading and occupying
Russia and China, the war would be nuclear.

To avoid this war, which, as so many experts have shown, would
terminate life on earth, the Russian and Chinese governments must soon
become far more realistic in their assessment of the evil that resides
in what Washington has turned into the world’s worst terrorist state–the
US.

It is possible that Russia, China, and the rest of the world will be
saved by American economic collapse. The US economy is a house of
cards. Real median family incomes are in long-term decline.
Universities produce graduates with degrees and heavy debts but no jobs.
The bond market is rigged by the Federal Reserve which necessitates
rigging the bullion markets in order to protect the dollar. The stock
market is rigged by the outpouring of money from the Federal Reserve, by
the Plunge Protection Team, and by corporations repurchasing their own
stock. The dollar is supported by tradition, habit, and currency swaps.

The American House of Cards continues to stand only as a result of
the tolerance of the world for vast corruption and disinformation and
because greed is satisfied by the money made from a rigged system. Russia and/or China could pull down this House of Cards whenever either country or both had leadership capable of it.

“Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar,” John McCain told
CNN’s Candy Crowley in January 2014. “Thank God for the Saudis and
Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends,” the senator said once again a
month later, at the Munich Security Conference.

McCain was praising Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the head of Saudi
Arabia’s intelligence services and a former ambassador to the United
States, for supporting forces fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in
Syria. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham had previously met with Bandar to encourage the Saudis to arm Syrian rebel forces.

But shortly after McCain’s Munich comments, Saudi Arabia’s King
Abdullah relieved Bandar of his Syrian covert-action portfolio, which
was then transferred
to Saudi Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. By mid-April,
just two weeks after President Obama met with King Abdullah on March 28,
Bandar had also been removed from his position as
head of Saudi intelligence—according to official government statements,
at “his own request.” Sources close to the royal court told me that, in
fact, the king fired Bandar over his handling of the kingdom’s Syria
policy and other simmering tensions, after initially refusing to accept
Bandar’s offers to resign. (Bandar retains his title as
secretary-general of the king’s National Security Council.)

The Free Syrian Army (FSA), the “moderate” armed opposition in the
country, receives a lot of attention. But two of the most successful
factions fighting Assad’s forces are Islamist extremist groups: Jabhat
al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the latter of which is now amassing territory in Iraq and threatening to further destabilize
the entire region. And that success is in part due to the support they
have received from two Persian Gulf countries: Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Qatar’s military and economic largesse has made its way to Jabhat
al-Nusra, to the point that a senior Qatari official told me he can
identify al-Nusra commanders by the blocks they control in various
Syrian cities. But ISIS is another matter. As one senior Qatari official
stated, “ISIS has been a Saudi project.”

ISIS, in fact, may have been a major part of Bandar’s covert-ops strategy in Syria. The Saudi government, for its part, has denied
allegations, including claims made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki, that it has directly supported ISIS. But there are also signs
that the kingdom recently shifted its assistance—whether direct or
indirect—away from extremist factions in Syria and toward more moderate
opposition groups.

“ISIS has been a Saudi project,” one Qatari official said.

The
United States, France, and Turkey have long sought to support the weak
and disorganized FSA, and to secure commitments from Qatar and Saudi
Arabia to do the same. When Mohammed bin Nayef took the Syrian file from
Bandar in February, the Saudi government appeared to finally be
endorsing this strategy. As The Washington Post’s David Ignatius wrote
at the time, “Prince Mohammed’s new oversight role reflects the
increasing concern in Saudi Arabia and other neighboring countries about
al-Qaeda’s growing power within the Syrian opposition.”

The worry at the time, punctuated by a February meeting between U.S.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice and the intelligence chiefs of
Turkey, Qatar, Jordan, and others in the region, was that ISIS and
al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra had emerged as the preeminent rebel
forces in Syria. The governments who took part reportedly committed
to cut off ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, and support the FSA instead. But
while official support from Qatar and Saudi Arabia appears to have dried
up, non-governmental military and financial support may still be flowing from these countries to Islamist groups.

Senior White House officials have refused to discuss the question of
any particular Saudi officials aiding ISIS and have not commented on
Bandar’s departure. But they have emphasized that Saudi Arabia is now
both supporting moderate Syrian rebels and helping coordinate regional
policies to deal with an ascendant ISIS threat.

Like elements of the mujahideen, which benefited from U.S.
financial and military support during the Soviet war in Afghanistan and
then later turned on the West in the form of al-Qaeda, ISIS achieved
scale and consequence through Saudi support, only to now pose a grave
threat to the kingdom and the region. It’s this concern about blowback
that has motivated Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey and
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to encourage restraint in arming Syrian
rebels. President Obama has so far heeded these warnings.

John McCain’s desire to help rebel forces toss off a brutal dictator and
fight for a more just and inclusive Syria is admirable. But as has been
proven repeatedly in the Middle East, ousting strongmen doesn’t
necessarily produce more favorable successor governments. Embracing
figures like Bandar, who may have tried to achieve his objectives in
Syria by building a monster, isn't worth it.

U.S. President Barack Obama has labelled the jihadist juggernaut that
calls itself the Islamic State a “cancer,” while his Defence Secretary,
Chuck Hagel, has called it more dangerous than al-Qaeda ever was,
claiming that its threat is “beyond anything we’ve seen.” No monster has
ever been born on its own. So the question is: which forces helped
create this new Frankenstein.

The Islamic State is a brutal, medieval organisation whose members
take pride in carrying out beheadings and flaunting the severed heads of
their victims as trophies. This cannot obscure an underlying reality:
the Islamic State represents a Sunni Islamist insurrection against
non-Sunni rulers in disintegrating Syria and Iraq.

Indeed, the ongoing fragmentation of states along primordial lines in
the arc between Israel and India is spawning de facto new entities or
blocks, including Shiastan, Wahhabistan, Kurdistan, ISstan and
Talibanstan. Other than Iran, Egypt and Turkey, most of the important
nations from the Maghreb to Pakistan (an internally torn state that
could shrink to Punjabistan or, simply, ISIstan) are modern western
concoctions, with no roots in history or pre-existing identity.

The West and agendas

It is beyond dispute that the Islamic State militia — formerly the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant — emerged from the Syrian civil
war, which began indigenously as a localised revolt against state
brutality under Syrian President Bashar al-Assad before being fuelled
with externally supplied funds and weapons. From Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA)-training centres in Turkey and Jordan, the rebels set up a
Free Syrian Army (FSA), launching attacks on government forces, as a
U.S.-backed information war demonised Mr. Assad and encouraged military
officers and soldiers to switch sides.

But the members of the U.S.-led coalition were never on the same page
because some allies had dual agendas. While the three spearheads of the
anti-Assad crusade — the U.S., Britain and France — focussed on aiding
the FSA, the radical Islamist sheikhdoms such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar,
Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates as well as the Islamist-leaning
government in Turkey channelled their weapons and funds to more overtly
Islamist groups. This splintered the Syrian opposition, marginalising
the FSA and paving the way for the Islamic State’s rise.

The anti-Assad coalition indeed started off on the wrong foot by
trying to speciously distinguish between “moderate” and “radical”
jihadists. The line separating the two is just too blurred. Indeed, the
term “moderate jihadists” is an oxymoron: Those waging jihad by the gun
can never be moderate.

Invoking jihad

The U.S. and its allies made a more fundamental mistake by infusing
the spirit of jihad in their campaign against Mr. Assad so as to help
trigger a popular uprising in Syria. The decision to instil the spirit
of jihad through television and radio broadcasts beamed to Syrians was
deliberate — to provoke Syria’s majority Sunni population to rise
against their secular government.

This ignored the lesson from Afghanistan (where the CIA in the 1980s
ran, via Pakistan, the largest covert operation in its history) — that
inciting jihad and arming “holy warriors” creates a deadly cocktail,
with far-reaching and long-lasting impacts on international security.
The Reagan administration openly used Islam as an ideological tool to
spur armed resistance to Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

In 1985, at a White House ceremony in honour of several Afghan mujahideen
— the jihadists out of which al-Qaeda evolved — President Ronald Reagan
declared, “These gentlemen are the moral equivalent of America’s
Founding Fathers.” Earlier in 1982, Reagan dedicated the space shuttle
‘Columbia’ to the Afghan resistance. He declared, “Just as the Columbia,
we think, represents man’s finest aspirations in the field of science
and technology, so too does the struggle of the Afghan people represent
man’s highest aspirations for freedom. I am dedicating, on behalf of the
American people, the March 22 launch of the Columbia to the people of
Afghanistan.”

The Afghan war veterans came to haunt the security of many countries.
Less known is the fact that the Islamic State’s self-declared caliph,
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — like Libyan militia leader Abdelhakim Belhadj
(whom the CIA abducted and subjected to “extraordinary rendition”) and
Chechen terrorist leader Airat Vakhitov — become radicalised while under
U.S. detention. As torture chambers, U.S. detention centres have served
as pressure cookers for extremism.

Mr. Obama’s Syria strategy took a page out of Reagan’s Afghan
playbook. Not surprisingly, his strategy backfired. It took just two
years for Syria to descend into a Somalia-style failed state under the
weight of the international jihad against Mr. Assad. This helped the
Islamic State not only to rise but also to use its control over
northeastern Syria to stage a surprise blitzkrieg deep into Iraq this
summer.

Had the U.S. and its allies refrained from arming jihadists to topple
Mr. Assad, would the Islamic State have emerged as a lethal, marauding
force? And would large swaths of upstream territory along the Euphrates
and Tigris rivers in Syria and Iraq have fallen into this monster’s
control? The exigencies of the topple-Assad campaign also prompted the
Obama administration to turn a blind eye to the flow of Gulf and Turkish
aid to the Islamic State.

A full circle

In fact, the Obama team, until recently, viewed the Islamic State as a
“good” terrorist organisation in Syria but a “bad” one in Iraq,
especially when it threatened to overrun the Kurdish regional capital,
Erbil. In January, Mr. Obama famously dismissed the Islamic State as a
local “JV team” trying to imitate al-Qaeda but without the capacity to
be a threat to America. It was only after the public outrage in the U.S.
over the video-recorded execution of American journalist James Foley
and the flight of Iraqi Christians and Yazidis that the White House re-evaluated the threat posed by the Islamic State.

Many had cautioned against the topple-Assad campaign, fearing that
extremist forces would gain control in the vacuum. Those still wedded to
overthrowing Mr. Assad’s rule, however, contend that Mr. Obama’s
failure to provide greater aid, including surface-to-air missiles, to
the Syrian rebels created a vacuum that produced the Islamic State. In
truth, more CIA arms to the increasingly ineffectual FSA would have
meant a stronger and more deadly Islamic State.

As part of his strategic calculus to oust Mr. Assad, Mr. Obama failed
to capitalise on the Arab Spring, which was then in full bloom. By
seeking to topple a secular autocracy in Syria while simultaneously
working to shield jihad-bankrolling monarchies from the Arab Spring, he
ended up strengthening Islamist forces — a development reinforced by the
U.S.-led overthrow of another secular Arab dictator, Muammar Qadhafi,
which has turned Libya into another failed state and created a lawless
jihadist citadel at Europe’s southern doorstep.

In fact, no sooner had Qadhafi been killed than Libya’s new rulers
established a theocracy, with no opposition from the western powers that
brought about the regime change. Indeed, the cloak of Islam helps to
protect the credibility of leaders who might otherwise be seen as
foreign puppets. For the same reason, the U.S. has condoned the Arab
monarchs for their long-standing alliance with Islamists. It has failed
to stop these cloistered royals from continuing to fund Muslim extremist
groups and madrasas in other countries. The American interest
in maintaining pliant regimes in oil-rich countries has trumped all
other considerations.

Today, Mr. Obama’s Syria policy is coming full circle. Having
portrayed Mr. Assad as a bloodthirsty monster, Washington must now
accept Mr. Assad as the lesser of the two evils and work with him to
defeat the larger threat of the Islamic State. The fact that the Islamic State’s heartland remains in northern Syria
means that it cannot be stopped unless the U.S. extends air strikes
into Syria. As the U.S. mulls that option — for which it would need at
least tacit permission from Syria, which still maintains good air
defences — it is fearful of being pulled into the middle of the
horrendous civil war there. It is thus discreetly urging Mr. Assad to
prioritise defeating the Islamic State.

Make no mistake: like al-Qaeda, the Islamic State is a monster
inadvertently spawned by the policies of those now in the lead to combat
it. The question is whether anything substantive will be learned from
this experience, unlike the forgotten lessons of America’s anti-Soviet
struggle in Afghanistan. At a time when jihadist groups are gaining
ground from Mali to Malaysia, Mr. Obama’s current effort to strike a
Faustian bargain with the Afghan Taliban, for example, gives little hope
that any lesson will be learned. U.S.-led policies toward the Islamic
world have prevented a clash between civilisations by fostering a clash
within a civilisation, but at serious cost to regional and international
security.

(Brahma Chellaney is a geostrategist and the author, most recently, of Water, Peace, and War, Oxford University Press, 2014.)

Pentagon and CIA Want to Keep ISIS Tweeting: Exploiting Social Media to Keep the Endless War on Terror Alive

The
Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies exploit social media to keep
the endless war on terror alive. Earlier this month we learned DARPA,
the Pentagon’s research lab, has
funded an array of social media studies, including analyses on various
social and political memes, celebrities and disinformation.

“The project list includes a study of how activists with the Occupy
movement used Twitter as well as a range of research on tracking
internet memes and some about understanding how influence behavior
(liking, following, retweeting) happens on a range of popular social
media platforms like Pinterest, Twitter, Kickstarter, Digg and Reddit,”
RT reported.

The Pentagon studies paralleled an experiment by Facebook controlling
emotions by manipulating news feeds. Facebook has connections to the
CIA and the Pentagon.

“Shortly before the Facebook controversy erupted, Darpa published a
lengthy list of the projects funded under its Social Media in Strategic
Communication (SMISC) program, including links to actual papers and
abstracts,”write Ben Quinn and James Ball for The Guardian.

ISIS Exploits Social Media

IS, the Islamic State, formerly ISIS, has used social media as an effective propaganda tool.

“The extremist group battling the Iraqi government, the Islamic State
in Iraq and Syria, may practice a seventh-century version of
fundamentalist Islam, but it has demonstrated modern sophistication when
it comes to using social media, particularly Twitter and other sites
like WordPress and Tumblr,” The New York Times reported in June.

The United States is not trying to diminish the social media reach of
IS despite the fact this would logically be near the top of its to-do
list in combating the rapidly expanding terrorist caliphate.

“U.S. intelligence prefers for these accounts to stay up, rather than
come down,” an anonymous employee at a major social media company told
Mashable. "American intelligence officials are monitoring the ISIL accounts,
trying to glean information about the deadly group and its strengths,
tactics and networks.”

“Social media ‘is one of the many sources’ American analysts monitor
when ‘assessing the fluid ISIL situation,’ a U.S. intelligence official
told Mashable on condition of anonymity.”

ISIS Brutality: Propaganda Set Piece in Forever War on Terror

However, instead of gleaning questionable intelligence the Pentagon
and the CIA are interested in controlling emotions and drumming up
consensus for the coming war against the Islamic State.

As the Nick Berg beheading video and other brutal al-Qaeda propaganda
videos demonstrated in the past, the value of terrorist social media is
in its ability to produce irrational emotions that can then be
exploited by the state as it carries out its permanent war agenda. The
Islamic State – funded by the Wahhabist Gulf emirates, supported by the
CIA, and trained by the U.S. military – specializes in this sort of
gruesome material.

“Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful
persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions,
and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or
commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided
messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media
channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in
propagandism – the applied creation and distribution of such forms of
persuasion,” explains Richard Alan Nelson.

The war on terror, designed to last indefinitely, requires
“purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions.” IS
takes the brutal al-Qaeda meme to the next level and pumps up the
volume.

Earlier this week, jihadists loyal to the "Islamic State" – a
self-proclaimed
Caliphate in eastern Syria and northern Iraq – ritually
beheaded American journalist James Foley, their captive since last year.
The gruesome film of the execution was posted online, of course; the IS has
eagerly embraced social media as a way of preaching jihad, seeing no
irony therein.

Empire’s Feral Friends

Foley’s executioner is reportedly
British – a UK citizen, rather, who went to Syria to join the jihad.
And why wouldn’t he? The British government has actually supported the
Syrian "rebels" that ended up becoming ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq
and Sham), along with the United States – sent
them weapons, even. It was supposed to be a pretext for yet
another evil little war, until it went off the rails last September. Now
these jihadists – once advertised as "freedom fighters for democracy and
human rights" – are beheading journalists, butchering
Christian children, and putting people’s heads
on spikes.

It isn’t the first time the Empire is in bed with murderers and terrorists:
prominent Washington politicians have praised
the "Kosovo
Liberation Army" as fighting for "human rights and American values."
In fact, one such politician – John McCain – has heaped praise on both the
KLA and the
ISIS. The KLA-run "Republic of Kosovo" has even helped the Empire
"train"
Syrian jihadists, back in 2012. Maybe that explains why so many Albanians (aka
"Kosovars") are killing and dying
in Syria and Iraq today.

Of course, the Imperial media claim the Albanians are "outraged"
that one of theirs would behead people. Yet why would they be, when the KLA
had no problem beheading
Serbs or committing other
atrocities in 1998-99? Jihadist beheadings were also
common during the Bosnian War, but the media narrative of "Good Muslims"
vs. "Evil Serbs" insisted on burying that inconvenient fact. The Empire
continues to cover
for the KLA even today.

Now Imperial officials are saying
ISIS is a threat greater than Al-Qaeda, and arguing not just for a new invasion
of Iraq, but also of Syria! It is a white-knight gambit: first one creates the
problem, then rides in to "solve it", reaping applause
and adulation. Except that it never actually works, and failure leaves
countless corpses in its wake.

A Hell of Their Own Making

The devastation of Iraq, the war in Syria, and now the rise of ISIS, all stem
from the 2003 invasion of
Iraq – a crime, based on a lie. Amidst the calls for renewed invasion –
sorry, "liberation" – of Iraq, remember that the whole mess is due
to the U.S. invading in the first place. Nor would this be the first time. In the 1970s, Zbigniew Brzezinski’s
dream of a "Soviet Vietnam" resulted in the creation of a jihadist
insurgency in Afghanistan. Fifty years of near-constant warfare has reduced
this country to abject barbarism, unleashing the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and the warlords.

Earlier this month, an American
general was killed in a "green-on-blue" attack at an Afghan military
academy. Now, even if they wanted to extricate themselves from Afghanistan at
this stage, Empire’s troops are stuck: their avenues of retreat are either controlled
by the Taliban, or depend on Russia – which the Empire has done its best to
antagonize over the past six months.

"Humanitarian" Murder

When the government of Ukraine rejected the EU’s predatory loans and costly,
destructive "reforms" last fall – in favor of free trade with Russia
– the Empire launched
a coup. The power in Kiev was seized by militant nationalists and outright
Nazis, previously on the fringe of politics.

In reaction, the overwhelmingly Russian population of Crimea chose to secede
(and joined Russia a few days later), as did the two industrial regions in the
east of the country, Donetsk and Lugansk. The Kiev junta responded by sending
in the tanks, torching
protesters in Odessa, and massacring civilians in
Mariupol. Donetsk and Lugansk took to arms, and have been successfully resisting
the government troops and Nazi militia ever since – though the unhinged Kiev
regime has used everything in its arsenal against the "rebels", including
heavy artillery, airstrikes and even ballistic missiles, all while screaming
about a phantom "Russian invasion."

Not surprisingly, all this has been done with the full support of the Empire.
Washington’s spokescritters
proclaim it’s perfectly fine for a government to bomb its own people, because
that’s just "defending sovereignty." Except, when Serbia actually
defended its sovereignty in 1999, with far less force, NATO screamed "genocide"
(which it
wasn’t) and launched a war
of aggression. When the Serbs bombed civilians (allegedly or actually),
the West howled "genocide." But when the Empire, or its clients, do
it – that’s "democracy."

Residents of Ferguson, take note.

Of Lies and Laws

All along, the Western media have parroted Kiev’s claims of "Russian aggression"
and "invasion." When Malaysian Airlines flight
MH17 was shot down on July 17, the media frenzy went up to eleven: "PUTIN’S
MISSILE", "PUTIN"S KILLED MY SON," screamed the typical
headlines. When the Russians presented radar records and maps showing the airplane
was most likely shot down by the Ukrainians, Washington claimed it had "evidence"
it was otherwise – but never produced it. All mention of MH17 simply
stopped, as if the plane and its passengers had never existed.

Now the media are again parroting claims of "invasion," after
a convoy of Russian humanitarian aid – inspected multiple times, escorted by
the Red Cross, held on the border for a week – finally
crossed into Lugansk over Kiev’s objections. So, while Empire’s jihadist
and Nazi "freedom fighter" clients carve a path of death and destruction
wherever they go, Russia’s "invaders" bring food and water to the
victims. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the world today.

Imperial hubris has created the Taliban and ISIS, and "fighting"
them will only ensure the
"Caliphate" thrives. Accusations that Russia or China somehow
seek world domination are merely a projection of the Anglo-American mind. Had
the government in Moscow actually wanted to invade the Ukraine, it could have
done so at any point over the past six months. But the brief emotional satisfaction
of seeing Russian tanks crush Nazi banners beneath their treads wouldn’t have
been worth compromising Russia’s core value of respecting international law.

That is the major, perhaps key, difference between the rest of the world,
and the Atlantic Empire – which recognizes no
law but force, and then only its own.

For Many
Iranians, the ‘Evidence’ Is Clear: ISIS Is an American Invention

Iranians
are as obsessed as Americans these days with the black-clad gangs
roaming Iraq and Syria and killing Shiites and other “infidels” in the
name of Sunni Islam. At the supermarket, in a shared taxi or at a family
gathering, conversations often turn to the mysterious group, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and how it came to be. And for most Iranians, the answer is obvious: the United States.

“Come on,
you know who has created
ISIS,”
said the supermarket owner, winking his right eye. “Admit it,” demanded
the taxi driver, hitting his steering wheel to make his point. “It is
so obvious!” concluded the talkative uncle at the birthday party.

ISIS,
Iranian leaders have been saying for a long time, is
made-in-the-U.S.A., a tool of terror intended by the world’s superpower
to divide and conquer the energy-rich Middle East and to counter the
growing influence of Iran in the region. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
has often said that he believes ISIS was created by the United States
as a way to regain a foothold in Iraq and to fight President Bashar
al-Assad of Syria, an ally of Iran.

“We have evidence, we know,” he told an audience of clerics last week, without elaborating.

Ayatollah
Khamenei reminded them that Al Qaeda — a creation of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Iran has said — and the Taliban were, in the eyes of Iranian
intelligence, devised by the West as a counterweight to Iran. “There is
no doubt that these movements are created by Western powers and their
regional agents,” Mr. Khamenei has insisted.

His
words, echoed by many others in Iran, have been resonating on state
television, which is the main tool for disseminating propaganda and is
watched all over the country. On
Wednesday it showed what it said were images of Senator John McCain,
the hawkish Arizona Republican, at a meeting with the current caliph of
ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. “These say more than a thousand words
regarding the links between the United States and this group,” an
announcer added.

Iranians
are often the first to dispute rash ideological statements by their
leaders, usually creating flurries of text messaged jokes in response.
And some skeptical voices could be heard.

“It
is essentially a terrorist group of the extremist Muslim sects of the
region against the other sects,” Mehdi Mirzaei, 27, a student of English
literature, said of ISIS. “I am pretty sure that America is not
supporting ISIS. That is all nonsense.”

But the claim that ISIS is a creation of the Obama administration
has gained wide traction here. From the Iranian viewpoint, shaped by
their spotty exposure to Western culture, analysts say, creating a
terrorist organization opposed to Iranian interests is the obvious thing
for a superpower to do.

“These
ISIS fighters, they remind me of American cowboy movies,” said Mostafa
Faramazian, an employee of the Oil Ministry. He had seen clips of the
Sunni fighters driving along the desert plains of Iraq and Syria, like
outlaws in the wild West. “They are performing the American dream in a
faraway land,” Mr. Faramazian said. “Their goal is to make us weak, like
they did with the Indians.”

Iran
also has a long history of victimhood, whether to Mongol invaders or
Western intelligence agencies and oil companies. Iranians, with their
language and faith, often feel lonely and isolated in the world arena.

“Where
most other states in the region were formed by colonial powers, Iran is
an ancient empire,” said Housang Tale, a historian and self-described
nationalist. The West, he said, and especially the United States as a
superpower, is well aware of Iran’s great potential and therefore has
committed itself to stopping the country from progressing in any way.

“Without groups like ISIS we can revive our empire,” Mr. Tale predicted, “and become the biggest power in the region.”

Victimization
plays an important role in the Islamic republic’s official ideology.
When the shah was ousted in 1979, the same revolutionaries who ended his
rule said his downfall illustrated the plots committed by the United
States, dropping the king after he had lost his usefulness. Iranian
textbooks now say that when Iranian students took over the United
States Embassy in 1979, taking diplomats and other personnel hostage for
444 days, they did so to forestall a coup d'état like the one organized
by the C.I.A. in 1953, which led to the toppling of a democratically
elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh.

The
list of perceived wrongdoings is so long that every major current event
involving the United States is explained by the state’s ideologists as a
plot to undermine Iranian interests. Ayatollah
Khamenei labeled the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, a “suspicious event.”
Former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called them a “plot.” The invasions
of Iraq and Afghanistan that came after were clearly meant to create a
ring of military bases around the country, officials have often said.
The sanctions imposed over the Islamic republic’s nuclear program are
“shackles.”

“Our country and our revolution are oppressed, but we are powerful,” Ayatollah Khamenei said on Thursday.

On
the streets, where many are openly critical of the clerical government
—its economic mismanagement, widespread corruption and a lack of
freedoms — threats to the nation still hit a very raw nerve, even among
the educated classes.

“America supports any group that breaks a ring of this Iran-Syria-Lebanon-Palestine
chain,” said Amir Hosein Mohammadi, a radiologist. He was referring to
what Iran’s leaders call the “axis of resistance,” the focal point of
opposition to United States interests in the region.

Iran’s
support for Syria’s president, Mr. Assad, never gained much traction
among ordinary people here, who care more about the economy than about
propping up the leader of a distant land. But
why would the United States now declare ISIS a threat to its national
security and say it is ready to bomb the group inside Syria, thereby
bolstering Mr. Assad by attacking his most formidable opponent?

“The
United States created a monster, even beyond their own control,” said
Mr. Mohammadi. “If they don’t stop ISIS now, nobody can predict what
will happen in the future.”

The rise of violent extremism around the world is the fault of
“certain states” and “intelligence agencies” that have helped to create
it and are failing to withstand it, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani
said in an address to the UN General Assembly. Speaking at the 69th session of the UN General Assembly on
Thursday, Rouhani stressed that extremism is not a regional but a
global issue, and called on states worldwide to unite against the
extremists.

“Certain states have
helped to create it, and are now failing to withstand it.
Currently our peoples are paying the price,"he said. "Certain intelligence agencies have
put blades in the hand of the madmen, who now spare no one.”

Rouhani also said the current anti-Western sentiment in certain
parts of the world was "the offspring
ofyesterday's colonialism. Today's anti-Westernism is a
reaction to yesterday's racism.”

The Iranian president urged “all those who have played a role
in founding and supporting these terror groups” to
acknowledge their mistake. Rouhani also blamed “strategic blunders of the West in the
Middle East, Central Asia and the Caucasus” for inciting
violence in these regions and creating a “haven for
terrorists and extremists.”

"Military aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq and
improper interference in the developments in Syria are clear
examples of this erroneous strategic approach in the Middle
East."

Warning that “if the
right approach is not undertaken in dealing with the issue at
hand” the Middle East risks turning into “a turbulent
and tumultuous region with repercussions for the whole
world.”

"The
rightsolution to
this quandary comes from within the region and regionally
provided solution withinternational support and not
from the outside the region," he said. Speaking of Iran’s
nuclear program, Rouhani vowed that Tehran would continue
negotiations to cement the deal with Western states.

“No one should doubt that compromise and agreement on this
issue is in the best interest of everyone, especially that of the
nations of the region,” he said. “According to all
international observers, the Islamic Republic of Iran has carried
out its commitments in good faith.”

Rouhani, who was elected
in Iran’s presidential election last year despite being opposed
by many in the country’s senior clergy, said that democracy
cannot be exported to another country as it is a product of
development, “not war and aggression.”

“Democracy is not an export product that can be commercially
imported from the West to the East. In an underdeveloped society,
imported democracy leads only to a weak and vulnerable
government,” he told the assembly.

Wall Street Journal: The Syria Campaign - A good place to start would be lifting the siege of Aleppo

American bombs aren't yet falling on Syria,
but on Tuesday Chuck Hagel suggested they soon will. "This plan includes
targeted actions against ISIL safe havens in Syria, including its
command and control, logistics capabilities and infrastructure," the
Secretary of Defense told the Senate. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs, added that the attacks "will be persistent and
sustainable."

Let's hope so, because no
campaign to destroy the Islamic State can succeed without waging a
campaign on both sides of an Iraqi-Syrian border that the terrorist
group long ago erased in the name of its caliphate. The Islamic State's
capital is in the Syrian city of Raqqa, which it has held for over a
year. It has recently scored major military victories against
Bashar Assad's
regime and moderate rebels of the Free Syrian Army (FSA),
particularly in the embattled city of Aleppo.

Those ISIS victories are a reminder
that time isn't on America's side in this fight, even as the
Administration contemplates a long war. That's especially true if
President
Obama
wants to avoid helping the Assad regime and its allies in
Hezbollah and Iran. Mr. Obama is three years late in making a serious
attempt to train and equip the FSA. Now that he's at last publicly
promised U.S. support, he needs a military strategy that helps them win.

Attacking the Islamic State advances
that goal, and not only because of its military gains against the FSA.
As the Journal reported Tuesday in an online video of life in Raqqa, the
Islamic State rules in totalitarian fashion, complete with public
crucifixions. The brutality has created conditions similar to those that
preceded the Sunni Awakening in Iraq in 2007—the revolt by ordinary
Sunnis and their tribal leaders in Anbar province against al Qaeda.

The
awakening would not have succeeded without the aid of U.S. forces,
which were available in adequate numbers thanks to President
Bush's
surge. Nothing similar can happen now because of President
Obama's short-sighted pledge to put no U.S. troops on the ground.

But
a devastating air campaign against the Islamic State might at least
weaken the group sufficiently to embolden a revolt and send new recruits
to the FSA. The model here is the air cover NATO gave to Kosovars as
they fought Serbian aggressors in 1999 in the Balkans.

Defeating
the Islamic State will also require attacks on the Assad regime. Sunnis
will not support the campaign against Islamic State if they think our
air strikes are intended to help the regime in Damascus and its Shiite
allies in Beirut and Tehran.

Assad had
previously helped the Islamic State by releasing its fighters from his
prisons and supplying it with oil in order to isolate the FSA and
consolidate his political base among Syria's Alawites and Christians.
Yet now he claims he is the only plausible alternative to the Islamic
State. The U.S. will have to ensure that the Islamic State's losses
benefit the FSA and not Assad.

The best
way to start would be for the U.S. to end the siege of Aleppo, where FSA
forces are trapped both by the Islamic State and Assad's forces. Saving
the city—Syria's largest—would end a humanitarian calamity and provide a
major psychological boost to the FSA.

Sooner
rather than later the U.S. will also have to do what Mr. Obama wanted
to do a year ago and bomb Assad's airfields. His air force consists
mainly of training aircraft dropping primitive—but
devastating—munitions, some of them loaded with chlorine gas. Air power
is one of his principle advantages over the FSA, and removing it would
make Assad more likely to negotiate with the FSA rather than risk
falling to Islamic State.

Mr. Obama
first promised to train and arm the FSA a year ago, but that effort was
microscopic and half-hearted. That helps explain why neighboring Arab
states like Jordan abandoned the effort or began aiding jihadist groups
instead. They will help now only if they believe Mr. Obama is serious.

Some conservatives are criticizing any intervention in Syria, but House Speaker
John Boehner
is right to support Mr. Obama's funding requests, no matter GOP
doubts about Mr. Obama's strategy and resolve. The Republicans who
opposed Mr. Obama's short-living plan to intervene in Syria a year ago
have been discredited by events. That walk-back gave Islamic State time
to expand and take more territory. The political lesson is that the GOP
should not be the midwife for Mr. Obama's weakness, much less as a
pretext for his inaction. In foreign policy the best politics is to
support the right policy.

The U.S. is
taking sides in Iraq and Syria against two entrenched enemies of
American interests. Our key allies are the Kurds, the parts of the Iraqi
military that aren't dominated by Iran's militia, and the moderate
Sunnis in Syria and Iraq. They must win on the ground to defeat ISIS.
Early action in Syria might have spared us this predicament, but that's
all the more reason to act decisively now.

Russia could go even further in
Ukraine with the "frozen conflict" strategy it has tried and tested in
other countries, and may even end up annexing around half of Ukrainian
territory, analysts say. Kiev has
accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of trying to "take the entire
Ukraine", a scenario that several experts can picture, believing that
the Kremlin is set on a military solution.

Prime
Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said Saturday that Putin's aim was not just
to annex the separatist regions of Donetsk and Lugansk but to eliminate
Ukraine as an independent country. Western
countries accuse Russia of having sent more than 1,000 soldiers to
fight in Ukraine alongside pro-Kremlin rebels, a charge which Moscow
denies.

Since a ceasefire
between Kiev and the rebels on September 5, a swathe of territory on the
Russian border, from Lugansk to the Sea of Azov, remains outside
Ukrainian government control. Several analysts said Russia is
already carving out a mini-state which would allow it to keep up the
pressure on Kiev, as it has done in Georgia, where Moscow backed two
separatist republics in the conflict there in 2008, and in Transdniestr,
the Moldovan region where the Kremlin has also backed separatists.

NATO chief Anders Fogh
Rasmussen said Monday that the "long-term ambition of Russia is to
establish a zone of influence in its near neighbourhood" and stop
bordering countries from joining alliances such as the EU or NATO. And
some analysts believe Putin -- who has taken to using the tsarist-era
term Novorossiya, or New Russia, to describe parts of Ukraine -- has
ambitions that go much further still.

"How far Russia will go in
southern Ukraine depends mainly on calculations in the Kremlin: How many
casualties are acceptable? How much damage to relations with the West
can be sustained?" said Ulrich Speck, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie
Europe think-tank in Brussels. "And can territory that has been
conquered actually be administered under Russian control, or will it be
subject to an endless partisan war?"

Researchers from the
Warsaw-based Polish Institute of International Affairs expect Ukraine's
pro-Russian rebels to mount a new offensive against government forces
this winter and have been war-gaming the most likely scenarios. The most probable outcome, they say, is Russian intervention in
late October to ensure a land corridor 300 kilometres long and 50
kilometres wide (180 miles long by 30 miles wide) to guarantee energy
and food supplies for Russian-annexed Crimea.

A
second scenario that is "30 percent likely" is that Russia could
proclaim the creation of "Novorossiya" in the southern half of Ukraine,
supported by 50,000 to 70,000 Russian soldiers, and linking Moldova's
Transdniestr to Crimea, they say. The
Ukranian economy would be devastated by any such move, which would cost
the country seven seaports including Odessa as well as two nuclear
power stations, with an estimated loss of 27 percent of gross domestic
product (GDP). Around one million people live in the region in question. The gloomiest scenario involves a complete partition of the country with 100,000 Russian troops controlling the industrial east.

"All of these are realistic. It depends on the timescales," Giles Keir of the Chatham House think-tank in London told AFP.

The
Royal United Services Institute, a British military think-tank, has
long warned of similar scenarios, saying that Russia's huge arms
industry depends on Ukraine for 30 percent of its essential components,
particularly for aircraft and missiles, which might tempt Moscow to
intervene. Keir said Putin
held the advantage because of his "strategic patience" -- largely
because Western democracies must worry more about domestic political
cycles.

"Russia does things
while people are looking away," for example the invasion of Georgia
during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, he said. "The initiative is entirely in their hands."

Ukraine's military published
a map that suggests Russian-backed forces have secured crucial
territory between the stronghold of Russian-backed separatists and a
strategic Ukrainian city. A shaky cease-fire is currently in place in eastern Ukraine, although residents say it still feels like war. If the new map is accurate, the situation further raises the specter that Moscow-backed separatists want to capture the port city of Mariupol.

"Ukraine's security council
finally admits rebels have taken control of border area all the way down
to Sea of Azov," journalist Alec Luhn said of the map.

Russia still has about 1,000 troops in Ukraine, according to NATO. Any assault on Mariupol would push the conflict into a dangerous new phase as the war would immediately grow wider. The city, if overrun, would
provide Russia a strategic link between the rebel-held regional capital
Donetsk to the north, the Azov Sea to the south, and the land route to
the Crimean peninsula (which Russian special forces annexed in March).

Russian President Vladimir
Putin's aim in Ukraine seems to involve creating a frozen conflict with a
breakaway region in Ukraine's southeast corner so that Putin can impose his will on the former Soviet republic. Creating a land bridge with Crimea would be an even more aggressive option.

Putin has a lot of things going for him in the medium-to-long term, including Ukraine's imploding economy, the threat of a further Russian invasion, the hesitance of Europe, the fact that winter is coming, and the state of Ukraine's battered army
and militias.

Ukrainian volunteers seized the strategic
rebel-held town of Ilovaisk last month "quickly and greedily" without
loss of life, said their commander
Semyon Semyonchenko,
marking another triumph over Russia-backed rebels in the east. Today,
Mr. Semyonchenko is in a hospital bed, and more than half of the at
least 600 Ukrainians who held the town are dead, wounded or missing.
Russia sent forces into Ukraine last week, quickly surrounded Ilovaisk,
pounded the Ukrainians with tanks and artillery, and ambushed them when
they tried to retreat.

The crushing
defeat at Ilovaisk has become a symbol of the reversal of Ukrainian
forces that only last month were emboldened by their derring-do and
advance on the two main rebel strongholds. With the arrival of the
Russian army, much of the Ukrainian battlefront is in rout, and Kiev is
preparing the country for a grim defensive war. Now
Kiev must face losing a swath of its industrial heartland to
Russia-backed separatists, just weeks after officials said they were
close to defeating them.

Whether it loses more than that appears to depend on Russian President
Vladimir Putin,
who last week boasted to European Commission President
José Manuel Barroso
that his Russian forces could take Kiev in two weeks if that was
what he wanted, according to an EU official briefed on the discussion. The
Kremlin has so far ignored western threats of harsher sanctions, and
has even ramped up supplies to rebels to stave off a potential defeat.
Russia denies sending troops or weapons.

Ukrainian officials say they know
they cannot win against an outright Russian invasion. If Moscow chooses
to advance deeper into Ukraine, the plan now is to make Russia pay with
men and materiel as it advances. But they will also do what Mr. Putin
all along has wanted them to do: Negotiate with Kremlin-backed rebels
who demand autonomy in eastern Ukraine.

"They
had the newest grenade launchers, tanks, large-caliber cannons. They
opened buildings up like a tin opener," said Trojan, a 34-year-old
business manager who commanded one volunteer unit and managed to
withdraw his men before the town was completely surrounded.

The
speaker of Ukraine's parliament proposed a day of mourning for those
who died in Ilovaisk, and a military spokesman pledged an investigation.
President Petro Poroshenko said there would be changes in the military
leadership after the setbacks. Ukrainian
Defense Minister
Valeriy Heletey
said Monday that the army would halt attempts to remove
separatists from the east, instead moving to a defensive strategy to
fight off what he called a "full-scale invasion" of Russian regular
troops.

Ukrainian officials say the
catastrophe at Ilovaisk was not the first time its troops were
encircled, and that hundreds were killed during the summer when groups
were pinned down along with Russian border. Ukrainian
officials say Russian and separatists forces are now advancing on the
major industrial port of Mariupol and on Monday seized the airport in
the easternmost rebel stronghold of Luhansk. But
Ilovaisk carried special resonance in Ukraine because many of those who
died and were captured were former protesters and activists who after
the toppling of Ukraine's last president enlisted in privately financed
battalions to fight Russia-backed rebels.

Though
more lightly armed than Ukraine army units, fighters from groups like
the Azov battalion, named after the sea off the south coast, burst into
towns and villages in eastern Ukraine in often crudely armored trucks
and other vehicles, flushing out separatists and raising Ukrainian
flags. The volunteer battalions were
originally intended to work as armed police units mopping up after army
troops recaptured towns from rebels. But their gung-ho efforts often
brought them into front-line duty, such as when they took Mariupol, a
southern industrial port of some 500,000.

Mr.
Semyonchenko said his battalion launched an attack on Ilovaisk on Aug.
19 to close a key road for reinforcements from Russia to the rebel
capital of Donetsk. Though they took most of the town without much of a
fight, Mr. Semyonchenko was wounded the second day. "I knew we needed
reinforcements and I began asking for them," he said. But the reinforcements were mostly the lightly armed volunteer battalions, like the Azov unit commanded by Trojan.

Ilovaisk
"was a mousetrap," said Trojan, a square-jawed giant trained in combat
sports. The fighters soon started incurring heavy casualties as
artillery from surrounding towns rained down on them. "It was a terrible
tragedy," he said.

Nikolai Kolesnik,
a supply officer for a volunteer battalion from the city of
Kriviy Rih, said his battalion set up and defended the four
heavily-fortified roadblocks, posting a tank and an armored personnel
carrier at each of them. But troops in the town were being decimated by
artillery and rocket fire. "I knew that a bigger assault was coming."

After
a few days of fighting, Russian forces had the town surrounded. By the
end of last week, they had a second ring of armor and artillery
surrounding Ukrainian army units that had been firing at Russian columns
heading up the road from the border.

Mr.
Semyonchenko posted desperate appeals to Kiev for army support on his
Facebook page. Hundreds of people protested outside army headquarters in
Kiev calling for reinforcements to be sent. But additional units sent
to the area struggled to break through, leaving the army and volunteer
units trapped.

Now commanders in
Ilovaisk turned their attention to escape.
Yuri Beryoza,
a battalion commander from the Dnipro battalion, began calling
Russian commanders on his mobile phone, to try to make a deal allowing
them safe passage out of the city, he said. Mr. Beryoza said the
Ukrainians held 20 Russian prisoners in Ilovaisk, and he offered to hand
them over after they were allowed to leave.

Mr.
Beryoza said he reached an agreement with the Russians on Friday
morning, and at 6 a.m. he and the other commanders ordered their troops
to move out of Ilovaisk and formed a column of 60 vehicles. At the front
of the column was a truck carrying dead and wounded, flying a white
flag.

Soldiers in the column said they
traveled for about an hour when surrounding Russian and rebel troops
opened fire on them, first with mortars, then with machine guns. As
vehicles caught fire and blew up, men in the column fled in every
direction. Tracked vehicles ran over men on foot and one armored vehicle
blew up, sending a head flying toward Taras Samchuk, a 28-year-old cook
from the western town of Lutsk. About 100 were killed on the road, and
more than that were wounded, survivors said.

Others
fled in small groups towards Ukrainian lines or were captured. Mr.
Beryoza said he was part of a group of 14 soldiers who crawled to safety
and arrived in Dnipropetrovsk on Sunday. Mr. Samchuk said his vehicle
swerved into a sunflower field and out of sight. Residents
of the small town of Kolmsomolske some dozen miles away said they saw
dozens of fighters staggering through the town in small groups on
Saturday morning, with bloodied bodies and dirty uniforms.

A few miles away that evening, a convoy of about 10 ambulances stood on the brow of a hill, checking if the road ahead was safe. Stuffed
with dozens of bedraggled soldiers stinking of dirt, sweat and flesh,
they flew white flags from their windows and said they had come from
Starobesheve, a town where the column had been headed. Asked where they were going, a driver stared blankly into the distance in silence, his hands trembling on the wheel.

Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order: The concept that has underpinned the modern geopolitical era is in crisis

Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies
are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and
Afghanistan's young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these
troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a
relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and
public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the
modern era is in crisis.

The search for
world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of
Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the
U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take
up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A
nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative
governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty
and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just
and lasting peace. The traditional European approach to order had viewed
peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects
of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a
concert of enlightened statesmen. The prevalent American view considered
people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise
and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching
goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals,
enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional
international rivalries.

This effort to establish world order
has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign
states govern most of the world's territory. The spread of democracy and
participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a
universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate
in real time.

The years from perhaps
1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history
when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an
amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of
statehood and balance of power. But vast regions of the world have never
shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order. These
reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine
crisis and the South China Sea. The order established and proclaimed by
the West stands at a turning point.

First, the nature of the state
itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to
a multitude of pressures. Europe has set out to transcend the state and
craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power.
But it is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept
of strategy can sustain a world order. And Europe has not yet given
itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority
internally and an imbalance of power along its borders. At the same
time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic
components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the
powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing
the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.

The
challenge in Asia is the opposite of Europe's: Balance-of-power
principles prevail unrelated to an agreed concept of legitimacy, driving
some disagreements to the edge of confrontation.

The
clash between the international economy and the political institutions
that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose
necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while
the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state.
Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers.
Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting
national aims or ideals of world order. This
dynamic has produced decades of sustained economic growth punctuated by
periodic financial crises of seemingly escalating intensity: in Latin
America in the 1980s; in Asia in 1997; in Russia in 1998; in the U.S. in
2001 and again starting in 2007; in Europe after 2010. The winners have
few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck
in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union's
southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least
obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.

The
international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent
on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political
reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.

A third failing of the current world
order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for
the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most
consequential issues. This may seem an odd criticism in light of the
many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time
in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against
the elaboration of long-range strategy. This process permits little
beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a
new form of summitry as "social media" event. A contemporary structure
of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot
merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a
matter of common conviction.

The penalty
for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in
some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of
influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of
governance. At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its
strength against other entities deemed illegitimate. A struggle between
regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between
nations has been. The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the
various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another.
These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling: The triumph of a
radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage
for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one
country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could
produce a crisis for the rest of the world.

A
world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory
governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with
agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But
progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of
intermediary stages. To play a
responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the
U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What
do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone?
What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage
in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is
the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the
application of these values depend on circumstance?

For
the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory
levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with
recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and
views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are
examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be
sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their
sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor
does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence
of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.

The May 2014 Moscow Conference on International Security (MCIS),
sponsored by the Russian Ministry of Defense, was focused on the role of
popular protest, and specifically color revolutions, in international
security. The speakers, which included top Russian military and
diplomatic officials such as Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov, argued that color revolutions are a new form of
warfare invented by Western governments seeking to remove
independently-minded national governments in favor of ones controlled by
the West. They argued that this was part of a global strategy to force
foreign values on a range of nations around the world that refuse to
accept U.S. hegemony and that Russia was a particular target of this
strategy.

While the West considers color revolutions to be peaceful expressions
of popular will opposing repressive authoritarian regimes, Russian
officials argue that military force is an integral part of all aspects
of color revolutions. Western governments start by using non-military
tactics to change opposing governments through color revolutions that
utilize the protest potential of the population to engineer peaceful
regime change. But military force is concealed behind this effort. If
the protest potential turns out to be insufficient, military force is
then used openly to ensure regime change. This includes the use of
external pressure on the regime in question to prevent the use of force
to restore order, followed by the provision of military and economic
assistance to rebel forces. If these measures are not sufficient,
Western states organize a military operation to defeat government forces
and allow the rebels to take power. Russian officials at the MCIS
conference described color revolutions as a new technique of aggression
pioneered by the United States and geared toward destroying a state from
within by dividing its population. The advantage of this technique,
compared to military intervention, is that it requires a relatively low
expenditure of resources to achieve its goals.

Shoigu argued that this scheme has been used in a wide range of
cases, including Serbia, Libya, and Syria—all cases where political
interference by the West transitioned into military action. In 2014, the
same scheme was followed in Ukraine, where anti-regime protests over
several months transformed into a civil war, and in Venezuela, where the
so-called democratic opposition is supposedly organized by the United
States. While Western readers may find the lumping together of uprisings
as disparate as those in Serbia in 2000, Syria in 2011, and Venezuela
in 2014 hard to swallow, from the Russian point of view, they all share
the common thread of occurring in countries that had governments that
were opposed to the United States. Although uprisings in countries whose
governments were close to the United States, such as Kyrgyzstan in 2010
and Egypt and Bahrain in 2011, are harder to explain, such
inconsistencies do not appear to trouble the Russian government.

Furthermore, while Russian discussion of the destabilizing role of
color revolutions usually portrays U.S. actions as taking place around
the world, there is a clear perception that Russia is one of the main
targets. This drives fear that unrest in the post-Soviet region may be a
wedge for the United States to force regime change in Russia itself.

Russia’s Counter-Strategy

This perspective appears to be at the core of a new national security
strategy that Russia is developing. Although the Russian government has
not produced any kind of document summarizing this new strategy, the
key aspects can be gleaned from an analysis of Russian leaders’
statements and Russian actions in recent months. The counter-strategy
combines political and military actions.

On the political side, Russia has stepped up its efforts to make
alliances with other authoritarian regimes that are similarly concerned
about the possibility of a popular uprising that could lead to their
loss of power. This strategy has been used by Russia to some extent
throughout Vladimir Putin’s presidency, with efforts to develop ties
with former Soviet allies in the Middle East and Asia. The MCIS
conference highlighted a renewed emphasis in this direction. The
presence of the Iranian defense minister, the Egyptian deputy defense
minister, the chief of defense from Myanmar, and deputy chiefs of
defense from Vietnam, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as a
large delegation from China, all indicate the primary focus of attention
for Russian military engagement this year. The absence of official
representatives from NATO member states particularly highlighted the
shift in emphasis of Russian military cooperation. By comparison, the
2013 MCIS had no representatives from Middle Eastern or Asian countries
outside of post-Soviet Eurasia, while senior officials from most NATO
member states were in attendance.

The second part of Russia’s political strategy is to damage the unity
of the Western alliance. This effort has been pursued for several years
through the development of political alliances with right-wing parties
throughout Europe and in the United States. As described by Marlene
Laruelle and Mitchell Orenstein, among others, Russia has supported
European nationalists’ anti-EU and anti-immigrant positions. The core of
Russia’s alliance with the European far right has been a shared
opposition to increased ties between the EU and its eastern neighbors.
The European right has also been sympathetic to Russia’s positions on
issues such as the role of religion in society, same-sex marriage, and
gay rights generally. These positions have also gained Russia some
unlikely supporters among the Christian right in the United States,
where Russian support for anti-abortion and anti-gay rights views has,
in turn, been reciprocated by what would be otherwise surprising
sympathy for Russian foreign policy positions on issues such as human
rights and democracy promotion.

On the military side, Russia has determined that the best way to
counter the perceived U.S. strategy is through a combination of strong
support for existing authoritarian regimes around the world. This
support has included military and economic assistance, as well as public
support for actions taken against protesters, who are often conflated
in Russian rhetoric with terrorists or supporters of radical ideologies
such as radical Islam or fascism.

In circumstances where this proves insufficient and the situation is
in an area deemed crucial to Russian national interests, Russia has
shown that it is willing to go further by providing direct support to
forces opposed to those supported by the West. This support may include
the simulation of popular uprisings, support for local insurgents, and
the threat of direct military force to protect co-ethnics.

Russia claims to reserve the right to protect Russians living abroad.
Given the large numbers of Russians living throughout post-Soviet
Eurasia, this claim has the potential to provide Russia with an excuse
for intervention anywhere in the region. Furthermore, it may lead to a
self-fulfilling prophecy, by which governments of other post-Soviet
states come to distrust their ethnic Russian populations, leading to
discrimination that creates the conditions for a potential Russian
intervention.

The Russian Strategy in Ukraine

The actions that Russia has been undertaking in Ukraine in recent
months are based on this strategy and closely parallel Russian
officials’ perceptions of how the U.S. color revolutions strategy works.
Russian officials provided the Yanukovych government with advice on how
to deal with anti-government protesters. This advice appears to have
involved encouragement to use repressive measures, though the government
appeared to lack either the capacity or willpower to carry it out to
the end. Officials from Russian security services met regularly with
Ukrainian government officials, with FSB Colonel General Sergei Beseda
present in Kyiv on Feb 20-21 as the Yanukovych government collapsed.

At the same time, the Russian government provided economic assistance
to Ukraine, including a $15 billion aid package and an agreement to
lower the price Ukraine paid for 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas from
$400 to $268. This assistance was canceled after the change of
government in Ukraine.

When Russian assistance proved inadequate to maintain the Yanukovych
government in power, Russia took immediate steps to weaken the new
anti-Russian government that was being formed in Kyiv. It seems highly
likely that Russian agents were involved in organizing counter-protests
in eastern Ukraine and Crimea after Viktor Yanukovych’s departure from
Ukraine.

From the start of the conflict, Russia repeatedly used the threat of
force to try to influence the actions of the new Ukrainian government,
both by making statements reserving the right to intervene in the
conflict and by staging several military exercises on the Ukrainian
border. The statements initially focused on the right of the Russian
government to protect its co-ethnics abroad, though as the conflict
accelerated over the summer they have shifted to the need to protect
civilians in general from a humanitarian disaster. This parallels past
Western statements that use the doctrine of the international
responsibility to protect civilians to justify interventions in internal
conflicts.

Finally, Russia has engaged in covert military action in Crimea and,
at a minimum, provided military and financial assistance to separatist
forces in eastern Ukraine. The quick Russian intervention in Crimea was
made possible by the presence of a relatively large contingent of
Russian troops (approximately 14,000) who were already based in Crimea
and the strong antipathy of the local population to the new Ukrainian
government. The Russian naval infantry based in Sevastopol were
augmented by special forces troops from Russian military intelligence,
who occupied key locations on the peninsula, including government
buildings and the isthmus connecting Crimea to the rest of Ukraine, and
surrounded Ukrainian military bases in the region. Many of these actions
paralleled Russian military exercises that had taken place a year
earlier in the Black Sea region.

Russian actions in eastern Ukraine have escalated more gradually, as
the conflict has dragged on in recent months. Initially, Russian support
consisted of a mass media propaganda campaign in opposition to the
“fascist junta” that had taken power in Kyiv and in support of the
actions being taken by protesters in the Donbas. As the conflict became
more violent in April and May 2014, volunteers from Russia joined in the
fighting. Many of these volunteers were recruited (unofficially)
through military recruitment offices in Russia. While no conclusive
evidence has surfaced, there is a strong likelihood that agents from
Russian security services were involved in coordinating protests in
eastern and southern Ukraine from their earliest stages.

Russia’s role in the conflict has increased over time, especially
after the separatist forces began to lose territory in late June 2014.
Early on, local protest leaders were sidelined by Russian citizens, some
of whom had a background working for Russian security services.
Beginning in June, Russia began to provide heavy weaponry to the
separatist forces, including multiple rocket launchers and air defense
weapons. Beginning in July, Russian forces have shelled Ukrainian forces
from Russian territory in order to prevent Ukraine from sealing off the
border and ending the provision of military assistance to separatist
forces. In August, the Russian government responded to continued
Ukrainian victories by sending in a limited contingent of Russian troops
and opening a new front in territory previously under the firm control
of government forces, near Novoazovsk and Mariupol in southern Donetsk
region. This escalation in Russian military assistance caused a major
shift in the path of the conflict, with Ukrainian forces taking heavy
casualties throughout the Donbas and losing control of approximately
half the territory they had gained over the summer.

Russian actions in Ukraine appear to mirror the actions Russian
leaders believe the United States has been taking in its efforts to
eliminate unfriendly governments around the world. While the increase in
military support for separatist forces during the summer of 2014
appeared to have been largely improvised, the earlier actions to
destabilize Ukraine in the aftermath of Yanukovych’s flight from Kyiv
seem to have been based on existing contingency plans. It is possible
that Russian leaders believe that the United States actively seeks to
destabilize opposing regimes because such activities are a standard part
of their own policy toolkit.

Impact on U.S. Policy and Recommendations

There has been a continuing debate on whether domestic or
international factors are primary in Russia’s current foreign policy. In
reality, it appears that both are working together. Russian foreign
policy appears to be based on a combination of fears of popular protest
and opposition to U.S. world hegemony, both of which are seen as
threatening the Putin regime.

Russia’s current policies in Ukraine have little to do with
geopolitical calculations about Ukraine’s economic ties with the EU
versus the Eurasian Union or even its potential NATO membership.
Similarly, the annexation of Crimea was not about ensuring the security
of the Black Sea Fleet. Instead, the main goal has been to strengthen
the Putin regime domestically by increasing patriotic attitudes among
the Russian population. Patriotism is the means by which the Russian
government inoculates the Russian population against anti-regime and/or
pro-Western attitudes. This goal explains the obsessive focus on
building an anti-Ukrainian and anti-American media narrative from an
early stage in the Ukraine conflict.

In this environment, it is not worth spending time trying to convince
the current Russian leadership to pursue more cooperative policies. If
they truly believe that the United States is seeking to force them out
of power and is simply waiting for an opportune moment to strike, then
Russian policies will remain committed to ensuring that the United
States does not get such an opportunity.

The U.S. response to such a position needs to focus on a combination
of reassuring steps to show that the United States is not planning to
overthrow the Putin regime and a restatement of the core U.S. position
that the citizens of each country deserve the right to determine their
own government without external interference (from either Russia or the
United States).

In practical terms, the U.S. government should encourage the
Ukrainian government to pursue policies of reconciliation in the Donbas.
While the conflict has been greatly exacerbated by Russian actions, it
has an internal component that cannot be solved by military action
alone. In an ideal world, Russia and the United States would work
together to encourage this reconciliation, though I doubt that the
current Russian government is genuinely interested in peace in eastern
Ukraine. Instead, it prefers to keep eastern Ukraine unstable as an
object lesson to its own population of the dangers of popular protest
leading to the overthrow of even a relatively unpopular regime.

Over and over again — throughout the entirety of my adult life, or so it
feels — I have been shown Polish photographs from the beautiful summer
of 1939: The children playing in the sunshine, the fashionable women on
Krakow streets. I have even seen a picture of a family wedding that took
place in June 1939, in the garden of a Polish country house I now own.
All of these pictures convey a sense of doom, for we know what happened
next. September 1939
brought invasion from both east and west, occupation, chaos,
destruction, genocide. Most of the people who attended that June wedding
were soon dead or in exile. None of them ever returned to the house.

In retrospect, all of them now look
naive. Instead of celebrating weddings, they should have dropped
everything, mobilized, prepared for total war while it was still
possible. And now I have to ask: Should Ukrainians, in the summer of 2014, do the same? Should central Europeans join them?

I
realize that this question sounds hysterical, and foolishly
apocalyptic, to U.S. or Western European readers. But hear me out, if
only because this is a conversation many people in the eastern half of
Europe are having right now. In the past few days, Russian troops
bearing the flag of a previously unknown country, Novorossiya, have marched across the border of southeastern Ukraine. The Russian Academy of Sciences recently announced it will publish a history of Novorossiya this autumn, presumably tracing its origins back to Catherine the Great. Various maps of Novorossiya
are said to be circulating in Moscow. Some include Kharkiv and
Dnipropetrovsk, cities that are still hundreds of miles away from the
fighting. Some place Novorossiya along the coast, so that it connects
Russia to Crimea and eventually to Transnistria, the Russian-occupied province of Moldova. Even if it starts out as an unrecognized rump state — Abkhazia and South Ossetia, “states” that Russia carved out of Georgia, are the models here — Novorossiya can grow larger over time.

Russian soldiers will have to create
this state — how many of them depends upon how hard Ukraine fights, and
who helps them — but eventually Russia will need more than soldiers to
hold this territory. Novorossiya will not be stable as long as it is
inhabited by Ukrainians who want it to stay Ukrainian. There is a
familiar solution to this, too. A few days ago, Alexander Dugin, an extreme nationalist whose views have helped shape those of the Russian president, issued an extraordinary statement. “Ukraine must be cleansed of idiots,” he wrote — and then called for the “genocide” of the “race of bastards.”

But
Novorossiya will also be hard to sustain if it has opponents in the
West. Possible solutions to that problem are also under discussion. Not
long ago, Vladimir Zhirinovsky — the Russian member of parliament and court jester who sometimes says things that those in power cannot — argued on television
that Russia should use nuclear weapons to bomb Poland and the Baltic
countries — “dwarf states,” he called them — and show the West who
really holds power in Europe: “Nothing threatens America, it’s
far away. But Eastern European countries will place themselves under the
threat of total annihilation,” he declared. Vladimir Putin indulges
these comments: Zhirinovsky’s statements are not official policy, the
Russian president says, but he always “gets the party going.”

A far more serious person, the dissident Russian
analyst Andrei Piontkovsky, has recently published an article
arguing, along lines that echo Zhirinovsky’s threats, that Putin really
is weighing the possibility of limited nuclear strikes — perhaps
against one of the Baltic capitals, perhaps a Polish city — to prove
that NATO is a hollow, meaningless entity that won’t dare strike back
for fear of a greater catastrophe. Indeed, in military exercises in 2009
and 2013, the Russian army openly “practiced” a nuclear attack on
Warsaw.

Is all of this nothing
more than the raving of lunatics? Maybe. And maybe Putin is too weak to
do any of this, and maybe it’s just scare tactics, and maybe his
oligarchs will stop him. But “Mein Kampf”
also seemed hysterical to Western and German audiences in 1933.
Stalin’s orders to “liquidate” whole classes and social groups within
the Soviet Union would have seemed equally insane to us at the time, if
we had been able to hear them.

But
Stalin kept to his word and carried out the threats, not because he was
crazy but because he followed his own logic to its ultimate conclusions
with such intense dedication — and because nobody stopped him. Right
now, nobody is able to stop Putin, either. So is it hysterical to
prepare for total war? Or is it naive not to do so?

The Real Reason Russia is Demonized and Sanctioned: The American Petrodollar

What do Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran and Russia have in common? They
have all been a victim of American aggression in one form or another –
either a military attack or economic sanctions. Washington uses ethical
pretexts, such as “protecting civilians” or “promoting democracy”, to
act belligerently towards these nations, but due to its hypocritical
nature of supporting dictators throughout the world and its disregard
for human rights, this excuse is a fabrication. The real reason for singling out these countries is the
petrodollar system, a scheme that enables America to stay afloat despite
being more than $17 trillion in debt. The existence of petrodollars is
one of the pillars of America’s economic might, because it creates a
significant external demand for the American currency, allowing the U.S.
to accumulate enormous debts without defaulting.

The beginning of the petrodollar

What makes the dollar unique is the fact that since the early 1970s
it has been, with a few notable exceptions, the only currency used to
buy and sell oil on the global market. This began when in 1973 the
Richard Nixon administration began negotiations with the government of
Saudi Arabia to establish what came to be referred to as the petrodollar
recycling system. Under the arrangement, the Saudis would only sell
their oil in U.S. dollars, and would invest the majority of their excess
oil profits into U.S. banks and Capital markets. The IMF would then use
this money to facilitate loans to oil importers who were having
difficulties covering the increase in oil prices. The payments and
interest on these loans would of course be denominated in U.S. dollars.

This agreement was formalised in the “The U.S.-Saudi Arabian Joint
Commission on Economic Cooperation” put together by Nixon’s Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger in 1974. The system was expanded to include the
rest of OPEC by 1975. This was a major economic success for the U.S. As
long as the world needs oil, and as long as oil is only sold in U.S.
dollars, there will be a demand for dollars, and that demand is what
gives the dollar its value.

How victims of American invasion wanted to stop trading in dollars

This petrodollar system stood unchallenged until September of 2000
when former Iraqi Persistent Saddam Hussein announced his decision to
switch Iraq’s oil sales off of the dollar to Euros. This was a direct
attack on the dollar. To protect the supremacy of the dollar, the U.S.
invaded Iraq in 2003. Once Iraqi oil fields were under U.S. control
after the invasion, oil sales were immediately switched back to the
dollar.

In February of 2009, former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was named Chairman of the African Union. He immediately proposed the formation of a unified state with a single currency. It was the nature of that proposed currency that got him killed.

In March of 2009 the African Union released a document entitled
“Towards a Single African Currency”. Pages 106 and 107 of that document
specifically discuss the benefits and technicalities of running the
African Central bank under a gold standard. On page 94 it explicitly
states that the key to the success of the African Monetary Union would
be the “eventual linking of a single African currency to the most
monetary of all commodities – gold.” In 2011 the CIA moved into Libya
and began backing militant groups in their campaign to topple Gaddafi
and the U.S. and NATO pushed through and stretched a U.N. no-fly zone
resolution to tip the balance with airstrikes. The presence of Al-Qaeda
extremists among these rebel fighters was swept under the rug.

In February of 2014, Russia became the new target for the U.S. Russia
is the world’s second largest oil exporter, and not only have they been
a thorn in Washington’s side diplomatically, but they also opened an
energy bourse in 2008, with sales denominated in Russian currency
(roubles) and gold. This project had been in the works since 2006. They
have also been working with China to pull off of the dollar in all of
their bilateral trade. Russia has also been in the process of organizing a Eurasian Economic Union which includes plans to adopt common currency unit, and which is scheduled to have its own independent energy market.

Leading up to the crisis in Ukraine had been presented with a choice:
either join the E.U. under an association agreement or join the
Eurasian Union. The E.U. insisted that this was an either or
proposition. Ukraine couldn’t join both. Russia on the other hand,
asserted that joining both posed no issue. President Yanukovich decided to
go with Russia. In response the U.S. national security apparatus did
what it does best: they toppled Yanukovich and installed a puppet
government.

Having a puppet in place however hasn’t turned out to be enough to
give Washington the upper hand in this crisis. They therfore decided to impose sanctions
and demonize Russia in hope that Moscow would lose its international
friends. However Russia is not Iraq or Libya. It is a dominant power an
going up against was unlikely to work out in America’s favour. In fact
it has already backfired. The sanctions have merely pushed Russia and China into closer cooperation and accelerated Russia’s de-dollarization agenda. And in spite of the rhetoric, this has not led to Russia being isolated.

End of petrodollar would bring an end to the U.S. hegemony

The petrodollar is the only life support machine left for the U.S.
and this is precisely why Washington goes after any country that tries
to destroy it. This is not deterring Russia and China from going ahead
with their plans. Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov
announced after talks in Beijing recently that Russia and China are
currently discussing the
creation of a system of inter-bank transactions, which would be an
analogue to the international system of bank transfers – SWIFT. The
Russian authorities intended to reduce the
dependence of the financial market on SWIFT after the first wave of US
sanctions, when international payment systems Visa and MasterCard
refused to work with a number of Russian banks. According to Shuvalov,
Russia also discussed the creation of an independent rating agency with
China. Specific proposals are to be made by the end of 2014.

All this indicates that
the Eurasian Economic Union will gradually abandon the dollar. As soon
as Russia and China show that it is really possible to abandon the
dollar, especially given the fact that the United States is pushing for
this, other countries will follow their example. This could become the
beginning of an end of the American global dominance.

Alexander Clackson is the founder of Global
Political Insight, a political media and research organisation. He has a
Master’s degree in International Relations. Alexander works as a
political consultant and frequently contributes to think-tanks and media
outlets.

Vladimir Putin poses a bigger threat
than ISIS and is more dangerous than Joseph Stalin, according to former
defence secretary Bob Ainsworth. The senior Labour MP in Britain qualified his claims by saying that
Putin so dangerous due to the fact he has a strong state and the right
sized military to achieve any ambitions he might have. This isn’t the first negative comment either which has been made by a
high-ranking British official, as Prince Charles said to reporters
during a recent trip to Canada that he believes that Putin is as bad as
Hitler.

The criticism of Russian President was made by Ainsworth in an
article he wrote recently for a Birmingham public affairs website called
the Chamberlain Files. In his article he wrote about Vladimir Putin,

No leader of a major power has behaved as overtly
aggressively since Stalin in the postwar period, and sadly Putin would
be very pleased with the comparison. He has said the demise of the
Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century and he claims
the right to act on behalf of Russian minorities in other states. As
there are Russian minorities throughout the old Soviet Union and far
wider he is in principle claiming the right to interfere in the affairs
of all of the independent sovereign states of eastern Europe. Stalin’s
policies pushed the world into the cold war. Putin has the potential to
be equally as dangerous.

Ainsworth’s strong remarks against Putin, which were published in the Guardian, claimed that it was vital for Europe to reduce its reliance on Russian energy and to seek other sources,

The prime minister told the House of Commons recently
there is no need to look at the strategic defence review of 2010 despite
the fact that large scale cuts are still being imposed on our armed
forces. We have an army stuffed full of the kind of vehicles best suited
to fight a counter insurgency in Afghanistan, not those likely to offer
reassurance to our European neighbours facing a Russia that is
re-equipping its own forces.

There’s little question that Ainsworth has a point about the potential threat Russia could pose for Europe
and even further afield, as the world seems far more interested in ISIS
beheadings than they do in what is happening in the Ukraine, which was
invaded, to all intents and purposes, recently.

Outgoing NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has
named Islamic State, or IS, and Russia as the key threats facing
the military alliance, accusing Russia of "trampling" on post-Cold War
peace. Speaking Monday at a meeting of the Carnegie Europe think
tank in Brussels, Rasmussen said NATO member states faced challenges
in the east and the south "on a scale we have not seen over two decades,
and they will endure for years to come."

"To the east, there is Russia. We have tried long and hard
to build a partnership with Russia in a way that respects Russia's
security concerns and based on international rules and norms," Rasmussen
said, according to a video of the speech published online by NATO.

"Regrettably Russia has rejected our efforts to engage.
Instead, Russia considers NATO — and the West more broadly — as
an adversary. Russia has trampled all the rules and commitments that
have kept peace in Europe and since the end of the Cold War," he added.

Rasmussen, who is stepping down at the end of the month
after five years in the job, has been a vocal opponent of Russia's
"reckless" policy on Ukraine, urging Moscow to drop its perceived
support for pro-Russian separatists in the east of that country. The 61-year-old Dane also warned against the new threat
posed by Islamic militant group IS, which has taken over large swathes
of territory in Syria and Iraq in recent months.

While ruling out NATO military intervention against
the group, Rasmussen said the "horrific atrocities" carried out by IS
could provide the basis for United Nations action in the Middle East. The U.S. has already carried out several air strikes on IS
forces in Iraq, though Russia warned last week it would consider any
strikes carried out without a UN mandate over Syria — a Russian ally —
as an act of aggression.

Russia is known for playing hard ball. A new bill announced on
Thursday threatens the assets of multinationals doing business there. The bill is part of an ongoing sanctions battle pitting Russia
against the U.S. and E.U. The most recent round of sanctions, announced
by Washington
and Brussels in July, went for the Russian jugular: energy firms. On
Thursday morning, financial news wires reported that the Russian
legislature was working on a bill that would empower the Russian
government to seize foreign assets. This does not bode well for a number
of American companies. Although this is all speculation, history has
shown that the Russian government is not shy about seizing energy assets
owned by companies deemed to be enemies of the state.

Yukos Oil, for instance, once owned by Russian billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was taken over by Rosneft . It’s CEO was put in prison for alleged tax fraud.

It’s not that Russia is going to seize the Alpha One oil rig drilling
in the Kara Sea with Exxon’s help, but the threat exists. And that will
keep American lawyers on their toes. “No company wants to run afoul of these sanctions. Companies are
still trying to understand the implications,” said Andrey Goltsblat, a
Moscow based lawyer for Goltsblat BLP. Goltsblat was the chief of staff
of the constitutional commission in Russia between 1989-93, when the new
constitution was passed in a referendum.

News of the foreign asset seizure bill weakened the dollar and spooked equities in Europe,
as gold jumped $9 to $1,224 from $1,215 and the Frankfurt stock
exchange declined 0.8% during the remaining 30 minutes of trade.

Thursday’s rise in the gold price is all due to the so-called Ukraine
variable – and the threat it poses to trade and global economic growth.
Ukraine has been a significant impediment to the ongoing price to
earnings multiple expansion in emerging markets and even in the S&P
500 since March, said Vladimir Signorelli, founder and chief economist
for Bretton Woods Research, a macro investment research firm based in
New Jersey.

Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula, then an autonomous region of
Ukraine, on March 16. Sanctions began immediately after that but were
targeted on individual Russians, banning them from taking money out of
American bank accounts or traveling to the U.S. Europe imposed similar
sanctions against the same individuals.

Over time, sanctions targeted important sectors of the Russian
economy. The energy sector was hit in July. Thursday’s bill is clearly a
shot across the bow of American multinationals, who could see assets
nationalized if the Ukraine tit-for-tat sanctions war worsens. With nationalist fervor running high in Moscow these days, such
anti-trade legislation has to be taken seriously in Europe. This is the
market with the most to lose from Russia.

“If this is not resolved by the winter, the European Union will be in
trouble,” said Jan Dehn, an economist with the Ashmore Group, a U.K.
based emerging markets investment firm. “At this rate, I would say the
outcome is going to have (Russian president Vladimir) Putin as the
winner,” he said. “The state energy companies have moved quickly on
locking down long term energy contracts with China. They’re diversifying
away from the E.U. And the E.U. might end up paying more for Russian
natural gas. Good for Russia. Bad for the E.U.,” he said.

Russia’s economy and equity markets won’t be the winner any time
soon, however. The Market Vectors Russia (RSX) exchange traded fund fell
2.5% to $23.38 per share. European markets will be next to suffer once the cold weather starts.
Europe is dependent on Russia for its foreign supply of heat — as in
natural gas delivered from Gazprom.

“We do not believe European equity markets will escape the overhang
and implications of the Ukrainian variable without a peace deal that
points toward a gradual rescission of economic sanctions between the
West and Russia,” said Signorelli.

Worth noting, Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko
left Washington empty handed last week. President Obama is fixated on
ISIS in the Middle East as his signature foreign policy at the moment.
Outside of sanctions, a proxy war with Russia is out of the question. As much as the U.S. government might like the idea of replacing
Russian gas in Europe with American liquefied natural gas, that
opportunity remains years away.

“We don’t have the infrastructure for LNG imports,” said Dehn.

Without a military commitment from Washington or NATO, Ukraine will
be forced to reach a deal with the pro-Russia separatists in the Eastern
Ukraine and this will likely be better for Putin than for Petro. Meanwhile, for American multinationals, it’s business as unusual
in Russia. It’s not that Moscow agents are knocking on their doors. But
the pressure of being a foreigner in a land that feels a bit scorned by
the West is no longer solely the anxiety of oligarchs who’ve run afoul
of the Kremlin.

Poland has said the volume of gas it has received so far this week from Russian gas monopoly Gazprom is down by at least 20%. Some European countries believe Moscow may use a disruption of gas to Europe as a trump card in its confrontation with the west over Ukraine. The row has already brought relations between Moscow and the west to their lowest ebb since the
cold war.

Ukraine's
gas transport monopoly Ukrtransgaz was quoted by a Russian news agency
as saying Gazprom was limiting flows to Poland to disrupt supplies of
gas in the opposite direction, from Poland into Ukraine. Kiev is
already cut off from Russian gas in a pricing dispute and depends on
these "reverse flows" to supply homes and businesses with gas.

Gazprom
made no immediate comment. Polish gas monopoly PGNiG said on Wednesday
it was trying to find out why volumes were down. There was no indication
that any European Union importers of Russian gas besides Poland were
affected. Slovakia, a major hub for Russia
gas exports to Europe, said volumes were steady, and operators in
Hungary, Bosnia and Serbia said there was no disruption to their
supplies.

Igor Gorsky, a spokesman for Gazprom Transgaz Belarus,
the Gazprom subsidiary that operates export pipelines via Belarus, said:
"There have been no extraordinary situations from our side, or any
maintenance work, which could have an impact on supply volumes."

Poland
has lobbied the EU hard to impose tougher sanctions on Moscow, and it
is to host elements of a new Nato rapid reaction force, created in
response to the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Gazprom supplies a
third of Europe's gas and for many EU countries it is the main source
of power for homes and industry. The Russian firm has said its focus is
on continuing to provide stable gas supplies for its customers.

The Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in December
1991, but under the stewardship of President Vladimir Putin, a former
KGB agent, a new cold war between Russia and the United States appears
to be forming. At least, it's cold for now.Over the past 30 months, Russian strategic (read nuclear)
forces have begun testing U.S. defenses on a much more regular basis.
The most recent attempt occurred just days ago when a pair of Russian
strategic bombers practiced cruise missile attacks on the U.S. during a
training mission -- a mission that U.S. officials said was timed to
coincide with a NATO summit in Wales aimed at developing a plan to blunt
Russia's aggression toward Ukraine.American and Canadian
systems picked up and tracked the aged Tu-95 "Bear-H" bombers flying a
line across the northern Atlantic Ocean "near Iceland, Greenland, and
Canada's northeast," the Free Beacon news site reported, adding:Analysis
of the flight indicated the aircraft were conducting practice runs to a
pre-determined "launch box"--an optimum point for firing nuclear-armed
cruise missiles at U.S. targets, said defense officials familiar with
intelligence reports.Testing of U.S. defenses have been increasingThe
disclosure of the latest Russian nuclear forces training came amid a
call by a Russian general the prior week for Moscow to adjust its
military doctrine to include a first-strike option against the U.S. and
NATO."Gen. Yuri Yakubov, a senior Defense Ministry official, was
quoted by the state-run Interfax news agency as saying that Russia's
2010 military doctrine should be revised to identify the United States
and the NATO alliance as enemies, and clearly outline the conditions for
a preemptive nuclear strike against them," the Free Beacon reported.Among other necessary doctrinal changes, Yakubov said, "it is necessary to hash out the conditions under which Russia could carry out a preemptive strike with the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces," which are the Russian army's nuclear forces.The
recent practice launch runs are just the latest in a string of such
missions that involve aggressive Russian bomber flights near U.S.
airspace. The Free Beacon said a number of analysts believe that the flights amount to nuclear saber-rattling by Moscow over escalating tensions surrounding Ukraine.No
U.S. or Canadian interceptors were launched against the Bear-H bombers
because the Russian planes remained outside the North American Air
Defense Identification Zone. However, not all missions in recent months
have done so; U.S. and allied aircraft have scrambled often since 2011
in response to Russian aircraft.At the NATO summit, officials
issued a statement that criticized "Russia's aggressive actions against
Ukraine [which] have fundamentally challenged our vision of a Europe
whole, free, and at peace."Russia upgrading its nuclear forcesThe
Tu-95 is a dual-turboprop bomber that first entered service with the
Soviet Air Force in 1956. Like its American jet-powered counterpart, the
B-52, the Bear has undergone a number of upgrades and revisions since
it was first introduced. Its most modern version is designed to carry
six AS-15 nuclear-armed cruise missiles, which have a range of more than
1,800 miles."Google Earth analysis reveals that a Tu-95 launch
box located in the Labrador Sea and firing AS-15 missiles would be in
range of Ottawa, New York, Washington, and Chicago, and could reach as
far south as the Norfolk Naval base," the Free Beacon reported.Other Russian moves regarding its nuclear force in recent months include:-- Moscow is developing new nuclear weapons to counter the U.S. and NATO. According to the New York Post,
Russia recently tested a new sea-based weapon that was launched from a
submarine. "We have warned many times that we would have to take
corresponding countermeasures to ensure our security," Putin told a
gathering of officials at the Kremlin, adding that he was now going to
take personal charge of the government commission overseeing military
industries.-- In early August, the Free Beacon reported that Russian aircraft had tested U.S. air defenses at least 16 times in the previous 10 days.--
In 2012, Interfax reported that Russia had tested a new
fifth-generation intercontinental ballistic missile designed to counter
U.S. anti-missile defenses.Meanwhile, there have been no reports that U.S. aircraft have been testing Russian air defense forces.

Russia is set to renew the country’s strategic nuclear forces by 100
percent, not 70 percent as previously announced, according to Deputy
Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. "The formation of
the technical basis for strategic nuclear forces is going at a
faster rate, and in fact, we will renew not 70 percent of the
SNF, but 100 percent," Rogozin told Rossiya TV
channel.

The deputy premier, who’s responsible for the Russian defense
industry, also declared that in 2015 the army and the navy are to
switch 30 percent of their weapons to "cutting edge"
technology, and by 70 percent in 2020. "Should we amaze our colleagues, and is it necessary to
brandish all types of weaponry to surprise them? Something must
be preserved as a quiet secret for yourself to reveal at the most
critical moment," Rogozin said, as quoted by RIA Novosti.

He added that the Russian army needs to be compact to move to
“any threatening war theater” if necessary.

Rogozin also stated that Russia can do without the French Mistral
helicopter carriers, the delivery of which was suspended over the
situation in Ukraine. Moreover, the official described the
statements from France that the contract could be disrupted as
“unlawful” because one third of the ship was
manufactured in Russia.

“For the same reason, it is impossible to transfer this
half-of-the-ship to anybody else,” he added.

“Secondly, the money has been paid and it must be returned
with penalties. Thirdly, it is not even money that France is
risking, but its status of a reliable supplier in the World Trade
Organization,” Rogozin said. Mistrals aren’t entirely convenient for the Russian climate, as
they were initially designed for the Mediterranean and wouldn’t
be able to sail in northern seas, the deputy premier underlined. Last but not the least, Russia can now make state-of-the-art
ships that can easily match up to the Mistrals, the official
said.

“Last year, on November 16 we transferred the Vikramaditya
light aircraft carrier, which was formerly our Admiral Gorshkov
missile cruiser, to our Indian colleagues. Thus, having
implemented that contract and earning big money, we proved inside
Russia and showed to the country’s leadership that Russia can now
assemble ships of that kind,” Rogozin stressed, as quoted by
ITAR-TASS. The deputy PM also said that Russia would invite the world’s best
specialists to work in the country’s manufacturing.

“In principle, we would be glad to hire French shipbuilders.
I’m not joking. We’ll be employing the best specialists from all
over the globe now,” Rogozin stated, adding that Ukrainian
workers are welcome too, and for them the procedure of getting
Russian citizenship would be simplified. Among other developments, the Russian military-industrial complex
will replace all the Ukrainian supplies in two-and-a-half years.

The deputy head of Russia’s supreme security body says US
international dominance is being replaced by multiple centers of power.
He urged a global agreement on the results of the Cold War, warning that
the world could otherwise become engulfed in chaos.

“The United States has an impression that the breakup of the
Soviet Union was the only result of the Cold War. This is
arguable, and this is possible. But no one has attempted to
analyze the results or make any conclusions from the situation.
The unipolar world headed by Americans simply appeared,”
Evgeny Lukyanov told the RIA Novosti.

“However, this status quo was not built to last. New power
centers have appeared on the international arena, including the
BRICS nations, and Russia itself has managed to regain its
stance. Nations openly declare their interests and demand respect
to their basic rights. This is how the US hegemony on the
international arena has ended and of course Washington officials
cannot agree with this,” the Russian official stated.

Lukyanov emphasized in the interview that the USSR was no more.

“Russia is a different state, a participant of international
processes and we want to have a say, we have national interests
which we intend to defend,” he said. “This caused the West to overreact, on the verge of hysteria.
But you cannot ignore the ‘Russia factor’ in the world,” the
official added.

Lukyanov told reporters that all nations should gather and reach
an agreement finalizing the Cold War. He suggested that it is
done at a global congress of all major players and said that the
only existing organization for such task is the UN and its
Security Council.

“Otherwise, we will have no rules of the game, no agreements.
Violations will happen without concrete obligations, and the
world will become less manageable and more chaotic,” he
said.

Lukyanov also touched upon the current situation in Ukraine and
mentioned that US advisors were actively helping the Kiev regime.

“I am talking about intelligence specialists and people from
US power structures. Of course, these people do not limit
themselves to advice, they are developing a strategic line that
the authorities are following strictly in making their
decisions,” he noted.

The official also recalled that Russia also used US advisors
during the reforms of the early ’90s and said that the results of
this cooperation could be a warning to everyone who decides to
repeat it.

He also said that it was unlikely that Kiev officials could
establish order while using mercenaries from private military
companies, such as Greystone Limited. German press has reported
earlier that about 400 contractors from US private security firms
were taking part in the Ukrainian military operation against
anti-government protesters in southeastern regions of the
country.

The Russian-Chinese strategic partnership (RCSP), indoctrinated in 1996, is Eurasia’s geopolitical anchor in the 21st
century, shaping its evolution and entrance into the Multipolar World.
No other political relationship between the two continents’ actors even
comes close, with the RCSP’s only formidable rival being the US via its
privileged military alliances with NATO, the Gulf Kingdoms, and Japan.
In this century’s struggle for the supercontinent, the interplay between
the RCSP and the US will come to define global politics.

Detractors or Distracters?

Much ado has been made in the Western media about the RCSP, with some highlighting its significance in challenging the Washington Consensus and others brushing it off as nothing more than Moscow’s increasing dependency on Beijing. The views of the former are often trumpeted to scare Americans and justify their government’s aggression against Russia and China, while the latter serves to feed a disinformation campaign meant to split Russia and China apart. Only rarely is the RCSP mentioned as
a cautionary warning for the US to moderate its policies, which is the
most responsible way to present this development to the Western voter.

The article’s intent is to provocatively argue that the RCSP is
already a worldwide reality in the making, the manifestation of
Washington’s nightmare, and that it extends beyond Eurasia and even into
North Africa and Latin America. It does seek to challenge the Western
order, but only to help guide the transition to the Multipolar World, a
goal which both countries pledged their solidarity to in 1997. The US’
reluctance in recognizing the tectonic shifts that have occurred in the
world since then and its insistence on prolonging the fading unipolar
moment are the largest sources of global destabilization today. Despite
what the detractors try to achieve by fear mongering and the distracters
by divisionary tactics, the RCSP is peaceful, defensive, and more
unified than ever. By exploring the confluences of Russian-Chinese
policy in key areas of Eurasia and beyond, the article will prove that
the RCSP is alive and growing, actively working to steer the world
closer to multipolarity.

PART I: Structure

Before moving on into the geopolitical details of the RCSP, one needs
to identify its structural underpinnings. These are the roles of Russia
and China, the basic fundamentals of their cooperation, and their
institutional actions in restructuring the international order.

The Russian Balancer and the Chinese Gateway

There are certain segmented roles that both partners play through
their interaction with one another. Russia acts as military and
political balancer across Eurasia, providing an alternative (be it to
the US or China) to all Great Powers, emerging states, and interested
entities. It will be shown how Russia works in close conjunction with
China to make sure that this balancing act satisfies the strategic
objectives of both, sometimes playing a ‘good cop, bad cop’ dynamic.
China, for its part, is on track to surpass the US as the world’s largest economy in terms of PPP
this year, and it is the predominant economic power in the developing
world. Its deep and privileged ties with developing agriculture and
commodity markets in Africa, Latin America, and the String of Pearls
states makes it a valuable economic gateway for Russia, especially in
light of recent developments. Thus, what Russia can provide China in
terms of military and political balancing in key global regions, China
can reciprocate with economic opportunities and trade facilitation there
via its already established contacts and elite networks.

Of course, the power tandem between Russia and China is far from
perfect, as is its strategic application across the world, but this is
the general theory of their hand-in-glove approach: Russia is the
Balancer and China is the Gateway. The further that one moves from these
two, for example, to the Mideast and Latin America, the more they can
see the pure multipolar objectives and close coordination between these
states; likewise, the closer they get to these two Eurasian cores, the
more complex the relationship appears and the more difficult it may be
to understand.

The Cradle of Cooperation

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is the cradle in which
the RCSP was born and raised. Originally founded as the Shanghai Five in
1996, it was reformed as the SCO in 2001 with the inclusion of
Uzbekistan. Since then, it has established observer cooperation with
Mongolia, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran, as well as dialogue
partnerships with Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Belarus. These countries
directly fall into the immediate sphere of the RCSP, where either Russia
or China can exert some degree or another of important nfluence to
varying degrees. Also, the SCO sets out
the foundations of the RCSP, listing the fight against “terrorism,
separatism, and extremism in all their manifestations” (thus including Color Revolutions) as their foremost foe. It just so happens that the US engages in all of these activities in its Eurasian-wide campaign of chaos and control,
thereby placing it at existential odds with Russia and China, as well
as the other official members. It should not be forgotten that the SCO
regularly holds joint military drills among its members, too.

The BRICS Bastion

In what is the most visible form of the RCSP, the two countries all
but cooperate as one force within the BRICS format. In May, Putin stated in
regards to China that “We have common priorities both on the global and
regional scale…We have agreed to coordinate our foreign policy steps
more closely, including within the UN, BRICS and the APEC… We have no
disagreements. On the contrary, we have vast plans that we are fully
determined to translate into reality.” This groundbreaking declaration
of global intent made the indispensible transition to action during the
July BRICS Summit in Brazil, during which the five members founded the New Development Bank to directly confront the West’s institutional economic dominance. Important memorandums on multipolar understanding and the creation of a currency reserve pool
rounded out the other important outcomes of the event. One can thus see
that BRICS has become the institutional bastion of Russian-Chinese
coordination all across the world.

Structure Summary

Russia and China have their own distinct roles to play within their
power tandem, and they are still refining the interplay between them.
The SCO, although being a multilateral framework, essentially functions
as a bilateral entity for larger Russian-Chinese cooperation, using
Central Asia as a practice ground for future applications elsewhere.
Continuing with the institutional cooperation between Russia and China,
one can most clearly see this in BRICS, most notably in the latest
summit. When analyzed as a unified whole, both countries are
combining their individual strengths within the proper institutions in
order to pursue the shared goal of multipolarity.

Since March 2014, the Russian “dispatch
of troops to Crimea”, and the contested referendum in Crimea followed by
its incorporation into the Russian Federation, “The West”* rhetoric is
that Russia is isolated, and that the U.S. and its allies will work to
further isolate it.

As the war in Eastern Ukraine
seems to be perceived mainly through “Crimean lenses”, this Western
policy, added to rounds of sanctions, aim at seeing an increasingly
isolated Russian Federation bend to a “Western” vision of what the
international order should be. The soon ex-General Secretary of Nato
Rasmussen’s statement on Estonian TV according to which “Russia is
globally isolated due to its actions in Ukraine” is only one example of
similar comments made over the last months (ETV Interview: Rasmussen Says Russia is Isolated, 5 September 2014).

The latest round of sanctions, coming into force on 12 September 2014 for the EU (EU; “EU sanctions against Russia over Ukraine crisis“),
taken on 12 September for the U.S., when cease-fire and peace
negotiations in Eastern Ukraine, supported by Russia, seem to progress,
could result from the same logic and abide to the same rhetoric.

Yet, as shown by Kearns and
Raynova looking at the voting pattern in the UN General Assembly for
the 27 March 2014 adoption of a resolution ‘calling upon states not to
recognise changes in the status of the Crimea region’, Russia’s
isolation is far from being obvious (“Is Russia really isolated on Ukraine?“, European Leadership Network, 1 April 2014). If Russia was not isolated then, could
it be that more than five months later, it is truly
becoming increasingly isolated, which would indicate the success of
Western policies?

To estimate the alleged
Russian isolation, we shall use as proxy indicators the sanctions
applied upon Russia on the one hand, and, on the other, the
international reactions to the Russian embargo on agricultural and food
products. We shall focus the analysis on main players and salient
points. Supplementary sources used to draw the concluding map (see
below) are listed at the bottom of the post.

The Russian Embargo

The Russian agricultural embargo was
taken under a “Presidential Executive Order On Applying Certain Special
Economic Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation”,
signed on 6 August 2014. The
ban was an answer to the then last batch of Western sanctions over
Ukraine and the MH17 tragedy felt as unjust, because Russia had (and,
since then, still has) repeatedly denied any direct involvement in the
conflict in Eastern Ukraine (Dmitry Medvedev, “Introductory Remarks“, Government
Meeting, 7 August 2014), all the more so that no proper investigation
could have then proved any Russian responsibility in the MH17 downing.

The preliminary investigation report published by the Dutch Safety Board
seven weeks after the MH17 catastrophe, still unable to fully determine
causes, only underlines further how early accusations against Russia
could have been felt as not only far-fetched (if after seven weeks one
cannot determine the culprit, then how could it have been done a few
hours after the crash?) but also unjust. The embargo started when
Medvedev signed a “Government resolution on enforcing this Executive
Order”, i.e. 7 August, should last twelve months and through it “Russia
has completely banned the importation of beef, pork, fruits and
vegetables, poultry, fish, cheese, milk and dairy products from the
European Union, the United States, Australia, Canada and the Kingdom of
Norway” (Medvedev, Ibid.).

Sanctions and Reactions to Russian Embargo

East Asia

In Eastern Asia, the U.S. tried to
enlist support for sanctions from China, Japan, Singapore and South
Korea, however without much success, save for Japan (e.g. Zachary Keck, “Why Asia Won’t Sanction Russia for MH17“, The Diplomat, 31 July 2014). South Korea stated it had no plan to apply sanctions, while Singapore only follows UN sanctions (Kiev Post, 25 July, Keck Ibid.).

As far as Japan is concerned, and
despite Russian expressed disappointment with sanctions (taken in April
and July), considering the so-far positive outlook of Japan-Russian
relationships (e.g. VOA News, 12 February 2014; Ria Novosti, 5 August 2014), Russian News Agency RIA Novosti
seems to imply that “behind the scene” diplomacy involving Former
Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori is taking place: Japan explains its
decision regarding sanctions by “having been forced into it”, meanwhile
reasserting the importance of relationships with Russia (“Japanese Politician to Convey Prime Minister’s Message to Russian Leadership: Reports“,
8 September 2014). Indeed, as reported in Japan, former Prime Minister
Mori met with President Putin, handing him a letter conveying “Abe’s
eagerness to prevent bilateral relations from deteriorating further.” (The Japan News, 11 September 2014). Japan, notably, is energy starved and needs to solve territorial issues with Russia over the Kuril islands, which stops both countries to sign any peace treaty ending World War II (e.g. Sudhir Devare, India & Southeast Asia: Towards Security Convergence, ISEAS, Singapore, p.36;Harry Kazianis, “World War II: Not Over For Japan and Russia“, The Diplomat, 30 April 2013).

China relations with Russia continue
being excellent and are even reinforced by “the West” sanctions against
Russia, as exemplified, among others, by the huge 30 years USD 400
billion gas deal (e.g. Martin, Forbes, 30 May 2014), the Arctic coordination (Valantin, RTAS,
23 june 2014), the launch in July 2014 of the New Development Bank
(NDB) by the BRICS as an alternative to the IMF and the World Bank,
institutions of the American post-World War II order (e.g. our warning back in March; Pilling, FT, 30 July 2014), the recent military exercises conducted within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation-SCO (e.g. Ria Novosti, 29 August 2014), the launch of Russia’s use of China UnionPay credit card system (RT, 15 August 2014), or deals regarding supply of fruits and vegetables to Russia from China (e.g. The Moscow Times, 11 August 2014).

Meanwhile,
in early September, as Russian President Putin visited Mongolia, the
Mongolian President stated that he will not take any sanctions against
Russia, but, on the contrary, position the country to sell meat to
his neighbour, while overall trade should be boosted (Al Jazeera, 3 September 2014).

South Asia

In South Asia, the U.S. intensely
courted India, a long-time ally of Russia, with trips by Secretary of
State Kerry followed by Secretary of Defense Hagel (among others, Mark Smith, “Russia relations with India and Pakistan“, Russian Series,
4/24, Conflict Studies Research Centre, Defence Academy of the United
Kingdom, 2004). To try attracting India into an American zone of
influence, even suggesting the signature of an India-Japan-U.S. military
alliance, which would fundamentally upset the current strategic
outlook, Hagel did not hesitate to offer, for example, co-development of
anti-tank guided missile, thus even directly competing with their
Israeli ally (Ajay Banerjee, “Hagel calls for US, Japan, India alliance“, The Tribune, 10 August 2014; Rajat Pandit, “US takes aim at Israeli antitank missiles in Indian arms market“, Times of India, 10 August 2014).

Yet, Indian External Affairs
Minister Sushma Swaraj reasserted the continuity of Indian Foreign
Policy, thus refusing to join the sanctions’ round against Russia (Defense news, 3 August 2014; Ria Novosti,
31 July 2014). Considering Indian historical relations with Russia,
“our country’s greatest friend” as Indian Prime Minister Modi put it
when meeting with Russian President Putin on 16 July, as well as Modi’s
will to further “strengthening Russia-India ties” (Indian Ministry of
External Affairs, India-Russia relations, 2014; Zeenews,
16 July 2014), India is unlikely to “abandon” Russia. However, the
probable visit of President Modi to the U.S. in late September (The Times of India) is to be monitored, including because of possible strategic evolutions regarding China and Japan.

Central Asia

Most Central Asian countries have mostly
good relationships with Russia, exemplified through common memberships
to various international organizations, which were not deteriorated by
“the West” actions. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
are members of the SCO,
with China and Russia.

During the recent Dushanbe summit on 11 and 12
September 2014, they signed the so-called Dushanbe Declaration (official text),
where, among other major point such as the possible enlargement of the
SCO, consensus over commitment for the UN, Syria, Iran or Afghanistan,
they “welcome[d] the signed September 4, 2014 Protocol on the basis of
the consultations of the Tripartite Liaison Group on joint steps aimed
at the implementation of the Peace Plan of the President and the
President of the Russia initiatives” (Google translation).

Kazakhstan is also a member of the Eurasian Union
(Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus), and accepted that its territory could
not be used to see the Russian embargo on agricultural products
bypassed, even if it did not itself enforce an embargo (“Lavrov interview“, Itar-Tass, 11 September 2014).

Furthermore, Russia is also a crucial
partner for many of those landlocked countries, as reminded, for
example, by Tajikistan’s Ambassador to Russia who reasserted that
““Russia is Tajikistan’s strategic partner. We favour close economic
cooperation with Russia” when he announced on 15 September the intention
to “step up economic cooperation with Russia” notably in the framework
of the agricultural embargo (Itar-Tass, 15 September 2014).

Uzbekistan as many other countries saw the opportunity with the Russian embargo to increase their own exports (Russian sanctions on Western food: An opportunity for Uzbekistan, 8 August 2014). Turkmenistan, for its part, seeks to
maintain neutral and good relationships with all sides, and thus did not
join in to sanction Russia.

Turkey rapidly stated its intention to
take advantage of the opportunity offered by the Russian embargo, as
emphasized by both the head of the Turkish Exporters Assembly (TIM) and
the Economy Minister (Reuters, 8 August 2014; Manolis Kefalogiannis, The Parliament Magazine,
9 September 2014). This move is criticized by the EU, showing that
“Ankara is distancing itself from the EU” because “as a candidate
country, Turkey should bring its foreign policy into line with that of
the EU”, as asked by the 15 August council of foreign ministers (Ibid.).
Again, beyond trade pragmatism, we may wonder if here too a political
statement is not made, as Turkey has been kept waiting for so long by
the EU, on the one hand and is, on the other – and probably relatedly,
strongly interested in joining the SCO, to which it received the status
of a dialogue partner in 2013 (Stephen Blank, “Turkey and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Motives and Consequences“, Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, 23 April 2014).

Unsurprisingly considering the good
relationships between the two countries, Iran also stressed its
readiness to export food to Russia (Fars News, 6 September 2014).

The relationship between Egypt and
Russia is definitely strengthening, as furthermore both now share the
experience of recent alienation by “the West”. When the Egyptian
revolution and struggle against the Islamism of the Muslim Brotherhood
were quite unanimously denounced as a military coup and condemned by
“the West” in 2013 (e.g. The Weekly No108 and No107), Russia
did not hesitate to reboot ties, notably with the visit of the “Russian
defense and foreign ministers in November” 2013. Now, after the state
visit of President al-Sisi to Russia in August 2014, not only are
military, agricultural and infrastructure contracts signed or about to
be, but discussions have started for “the creation of a free trade zone
between Egypt and the Russia-led Customs Union, which also includes
Belarus and Kazakhstan” (Al-Arabiya News, 12 August 2014; Ria Novosti, 12 August 2014; Egypt State Information Service, 12 August 2014).

More recently, on 2 September, the
Tunisian Foreign Minister expressed Tunisia’s willingness “to supply
many goods that Russia does not receive from Europe now”, among other
issues discussed (Itar-Tass, 2 September 2014; Tunisie Afrique Press, “La Russie assiste la Tunisie dans sa guerre contre le terrorisme“, Global Net,
3 September 2014). Morocco also wishes to take advantage of the new
opportunity and “a Morocco–Russia summit will take place in
mid-September to create a strategy for more comprehensive trade between
the two countries.” (Jeune Afrique, 5 September 2014).

Trying to preserve relationships with
the West, as it is a signatory of an Association Agreement with the EU,
while also wishing to continue improving the prospects for normalization
with Russia, Georgia expressed its will to take advantage of the
offered possibility to increase agricultural exports and stated it was
not joining in imposing sanctions on Russia (Armenian News Tert.am, 15 August 2014; Georgy Kalatozishvili, “Georgia waits out the Ukrainian crisis, trying to please everybody“,
29 August 2014). Importantly, Kalatozishvili (Ibid.) also underlines
that the West is perceived as weaker than thought, which contributes to
explain Georgia’s decisions and its criticism of the sanctions’ path.

Although candidate states to the EU were
called upon to develop a foreign policy similar to the EU, Serbia
refused to take any sanction against Russia (Lauren Gieseke, “Russian Sanctions Pose Particular Strains on Aspiring EU and NATO Candidate States (7/3)“, The European Institute, July
2014), most probably considering its long-standing relationship with
Russia. On the contrary, Montenegro, for example, accepted to follow the
European Union decisions (Ibid.).

However, this almost total EU unity also
hides varying position according to member states. Besides hardliners
against Russia, such as Poland and the UK, some states increasingly
developed a more measured approach to sanctions, notably Finland, if not
plain “opposition … now coming from Austria, the Czech Republic and
Slovakia, among others,” or from Hungary (DW, “Resistance grows in EU to new Russia sanctions“, 5 September 2014; BBC news, “Hungary PM Orban condemns EU sanctions on Russia“, 15 August 2014).

Furthermore, it would also seems that
within some European states a domestic opposition develops against
sanctions, in a more or less generalized way. For example, in early
August, in Bulgaria, only 10% of the population supported stricter
sanctions, whilst 40% thought “that Bulgaria should not participate in
sanctions against any country in general, Russia included” (Novinite.com,
7 August 2014). Opposition to sanctions, in general, originates from
the left (DW, Ibid.), from the business and corporate sector, as well as
from agricultural producers, which will be seriously hit by the Russian
embargo.

For example, in Spain, in Aragon on 18 August (RTVE.es) then in Catalonia on 23 August (RT video; Ria Novosti,
23 August 2014), farmers protested against the EU policy over Russia
that led to the embargo and even burnt the EU flag. The cost of the
retaliatory embargo to the EU will indeed be felt strongly as, according
to the AP/AFP, in 2013 “Russia imported $1.3 billion (971 million
euros) worth of foodstuffs from the US, an amount that was dwarfed by
the EU’s agricultural exports to Russia in 2013, which totaled $15.8
billion.” (Deutsche Welle, “Russia announces ‘full embargo’ on most food from US, EU“).
Hence the EU producers of agricultural products are paying the brunt of
the West policy. Beyond direct and immediate cost, including bankruptcy
for smaller farmers, the negative impact is highly likely to be
long-lasting as the new contracts signed over the world will be
difficult if not impossible to recapture.

As another indication of discontent
related to sanctions, this time from both the political world and larger
corporations, we find the little publicized meeting that was held under
the aegis of the French non-profit organization Dialogue Franco-Russe, where
the President of the Russian Duma and other Russian parliamentarians
met French ones and political figures as well as businessmen, including
the CEO of Total (energy, oil), the Director for Europe of GDF-Suez (energy) and Serge Dassault (founder of Dassault Systems, from aerospace and defense to energy etc.) – (meeting report, in French, in English).As another example, German businesses have also at time shared their doubts regarding the sanctions’ policy (e.g. Bethan John “One-third of German firms see sanctions hitting Russian business“, Reuters, 9 September).

Russia is not isolated

The resulting map was obtained with the
following conventions: a scale from -4 to -1 for those countries
applying sanctions, from the “hard-liners” to mildest sanctions; 0 given
to countries having not applied sanctions or having refused to do so;
a scale from 1 to 4 for countries taking advantage of the agricultural
embargo, according to the strength of their relationship to Russia (the
white colour means no data).

As visually represented on the map, it is obvious from the analysis that Russia is far from being isolated, on the contrary.As a result, it would seem that the West
policies are less successful than the rhetoric implies. We have
obviously truly entered into an era of multipolarity, where the wishes
of a single superpower are not systematically followed anymore. We would
thus be witnessing the end of American hegemony, only still holding,
and imperfectly so, in Europe, Australia and New Zealand.

Furthermore, the discrepancy between
declarations and reality may also fuel change by promoting
misunderstanding, leading to feeling of aggression and injustice,
breeding in turn heightened tensions and accelerated actions to protect
oneself. The cost of believing wrongly that there is or could be an
isolated Russia may be huge, not only in economic terms – as born
principally by Europe and European companies and producers – but also in
terms of international influence and power and thus ability to achieve
one’s vision and aims, including ensuring the security of
one’s citizens at best.

As
so many other threats, from the impact of climate change to the spread
of Ebola without forgetting the expansionist and warring aims of the
Islamic State would demand cooperation rather than avoidable tense and
escalating divisions, it may be high time for “the West” to take stock
of reality and devise new policies.

——

*”The West” here is a shorthand that refers to the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. (the Five Eyes,
an intelligence alliance), the EU and member states – the UK is, still,
of course also part of the EU – Switzerland and Norway. New Zealand and
Switzerland, however, have taken less strident positions against Russia
(see sources below). We could – and should – however discuss why Russia
is not seen as both a European, thus Western, and Asian country, when
so many elements concur to show it is: geographically (until the Ural
mountains at least), historically, culturally (considering the
incredible Russian contribution to European culture, from music with
Tchaikovsky (listen to a Best of – Youtube), Rimski-Korsakov (extract from Scheherazade), Rachmaninov (Best Of) or Prokoviev (Best of) to name only a few composers, to ballet dancing with Diaghilev and Nijinsky (e.g. Twenty Years that Changed the World of Art – visit Harvard exhibition)
to painting with Kandinsky or Chagall for example, or literature, with
Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky among many others), and geopolitically (from
Russia’s role in defeating Napoleon, to the 1907 Triple Entente between Britain, France and Russia (e.g. Conybear and Sandler, “The Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance 1880-1914…“, American Political Science Review, 84(4), 1990) to the Soviet Union costly and crucial fight against the Axis during WWII to take only recent examples.

President Vladimir Putin's approval rating has reached
a record high of 87 percent, according to the results of a survey
published Wednesday by the independent Levada Center pollster. In May, Putin enjoyed an approval rating of 83 percent, its highest since 2008, according to major U.S. pollster Gallup. Putin's popularity at home has skyrocketed against
a backdrop of increased diplomatic isolation connected with the crisis
in Ukraine, where the West claims that the Kremlin's aggressive policies
continue to destabilize the nation and inflict casualties.His latest popularity boost comes on the heels of yet another round of EU and U.S. sanctions against Russian officials. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's approval rating sits at 71
percent, the Levada poll revealed. Sixty-six percent of respondents also
said they believe Russia is "moving in the right direction." The poll was conducted from Aug. 1 to 4, among 1,600 adults across 134 Russian cities.

For all the celebrations in Kiev over ratifying the trade deal with Europe, it is the Russians who got most of what they wanted

Historians will struggle to put dates on Russia’s murky war against
Ukraine. It had no official start and no formal end. Russia never
admitted that it was in the conflict, which it fanned and fought both
directly and through proxies, so has not celebrated victory as it did
after the annexation of Crimea. Ukraine never formally declared itself
under attack, so it cannot formally admit its defeat. But that does not make defeat any less real. After six months of
fighting, Ukraine has lost at least 3,000 men and control over a swathe
of territory in the east, as well as being forced by Russia to delay the
full implementation of its association agreement with the European
Union.

Ukraine’s setback was masked by the fanfare of the simultaneous
ratification of the agreement by the Ukrainian Rada and the European
Parliament on September 16th (see Charlemagne).
Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s president, called it an historic moment and
led a chorus of MPs in the national anthem: “Ukraine is not dead yet”.
After all, it was the decision by the former president, Viktor
Yanukovych, to reject an earlier version of the deal a year ago that
sparked the Maidan revolution.

Yet the agreement will not fully come into force at least until the
end of 2015. The pause is meant to give Ukraine, Russia and the EU time
to find a compromise. (During it, Ukraine will be able to export to
Europe duty-free while European goods will still be taxed on their way
into Ukraine.) This is precisely what Russia asked for before the start
of the Ukrainian crisis, only to be told to keep out. Many
Ukraine-watchers are worried that the association agreement could yet be
further hollowed out.

That is why European officials were in despair when news of the delay
emerged from the three-way talks between Ukraine, Russia and European
Union. “It is Munich 1938,” one said. Yet Ukraine did not have much
choice. Russia threatened the renewal of military action and a complete
economic blockade if Ukraine did not postpone implementation. To make
itself clear, Moscow is to increase its military presence in Crimea and
introduce tariffs for Ukrainian exports to Russia that will be deferred
so long as Ukraine does not implement the agreement with Europe. It is
not just Ukraine’s free trade with Europe that is at stake, but its
ability to reform and to make its own decisions about the future.

Ukrainian politicians have pledged to reform their economy despite
the deferral of the EU agreement, but if the past 23 years are anything
to go by the chances of their doing it are slim. Arseniy Yatseniuk, the
prime minister, blames the war for lack of reform in the past few
months, but it is unclear why the government could not have begun to
remove wasteful energy subsidies, deregulate the economy or curb
corruption. Even during the war, some in Ukraine’s defence ministry used
intermediaries to charge money for hardware and guns being supplied to
volunteers on their own side, according to Zerkalo Nedeli,
a weekly. Private firms whose employees enlisted for military duty
bought flak jackets from Ukrainian suppliers that turned out to be
fakes.

On the same day the Rada ratified the association agreement, it
passed a law granting special status to the part of the Donbas
controlled by Russian-backed separatists, including the cities of
Donetsk and Luhansk. The law gives these territories broad autonomy for
three years, guarantees Russian-language rights and self-governance, and
allows them to establish deeper ties with Russia—although it does not
give the region a say in foreign or defence policy. Another law offers
an amnesty to rebel fighters. Mr Poroshenko’s aides say this was the
only way to save lives, but it poses uncomfortable questions. “What did
our boys die for? Why did we not hold peace talks back in May?” asked
Sergei Taruta, the Kiev-appointed governor of the Donetsk region.

Unlike the association agreement, the vote on special status was held
in secret, with journalists barred and voting rolls concealed to avoid
accusations of treachery. Even Mr Poroshenko’s supporters recoiled. As
Mustafa Nayem, a journalist- turned-candidate from Mr Poroshenko’s bloc,
says: “To pass such important laws without an open discussion, without
any explanation to society, is barbaric.” Special status may establish a
frozen conflict with no clear borders, a perfect environment for
contraband and banditry.

Ukraine clearly cannot win a fight against Russia. But Mr Putin also
faces limits. The Russian public does not support full-scale war with
Ukraine. The killing of its own soldiers, who were not even meant to be
involved, has been uncomfortable for the Kremlin. And for all Moscow’s
bravado, Western sanctions have pushed Russia’s economy closer to
recession. Alexei Kudrin, Russia’s former finance minister, talks of a
5% contraction in GDP if more sanctions are imposed. Russia has already
tapped its rainy-day fund. The strain is being seen in infighting among
Mr Putin’s entourage (see article).

Both Mr Putin and Mr Poroshenko have reasons to want a truce: Mr
Putin to avoid more sanctions and questions from relatives of dead
soldiers, and Mr Poroshenko ahead of a parliamentary election on October
26th. But this does not mean the end of Ukraine’s troubles and Russia’s
adventurism. The Kremlin’s goal is not just to control two cities in
eastern Ukraine, but to stop all of Ukraine from moving westward.
Further violence in the east is possible as rebels try to capture more
territory.

The biggest danger, however, is that the fragile truce will be
followed by the usual political wrangling in Kiev and renewed Ukraine
fatigue in the West. The only way Ukraine can realise its European
aspirations is over many years, by building an economically and
politically coherent state. That will take patience, money and time from
the West and perseverance from Ukraine. But not to try would mean the
ultimate defeat and betrayal of those who died for Ukraine’s
sovereignty.

Stephen Cohen is one of America’s top experts on Russia. Cohen is
professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York
University and Princeton University, and the author of a number of books
on Russia and the Soviet Union. Cohen says that the West is mainly to blame for the crisis in Ukraine:

This is a horrific, tragic, completely unnecessary war in
eastern Ukraine. In my own judgment, we have contributed mightily to
this tragedy. I would say that historians one day will look back and say
that America has blood on its hands. Three thousand people have died,
most of them civilians who couldn’t move quickly. That’s women with
small children, older women. A million refugees.

[Interviewer:] The possibility of Ukraine in NATO and what that means and what—

STEPHEN COHEN: Nuclearwar.

[Interviewer:] Explain.

STEPHEN COHEN: Next question. I mean, it’s clear. It’s clear. First
of all, by NATO’s own rules, Ukraine cannot join NATO, a country that
does not control its own territory. In this case, Kiev controls less and
less by the day. It’s lost Crimea. It’s losing the Donbas—I just
described why—to the war. A country that does not control its own
territory cannot join Ukraine [sic]. Those are the rules.

[Interviewer:] Cannot join—

STEPHEN COHEN: I mean, NATO. Secondly, you have to meet certain
economic, political and military criteria to join NATO. Ukraine meets
none of them. Thirdly, and most importantly, Ukraine is linked to Russia
not only in terms of being Russia’s essential security zone, but it’s
linked conjugally, so to speak, intermarriage. There are millions, if
not tens of millions, of Russian and Ukrainians married together. Put it
in NATO, and you’re going to put a barricade through millions of
families. Russia will react militarily.

In fact, Russia is already reacting militarily, because look what
they’re doing in Wales today. They’re going to create a so-called rapid
deployment force of 4,000 fighters. What is 4,000 fighters? Fifteen
thousand or less rebels in Ukraine are crushing a 50,000-member
Ukrainian army. Four thousand against a million-man Russian army, it’s
nonsense. The real reason for creating the so-called rapid deployment
force is they say it needs infrastructure. And the infrastructure—that
is, in plain language is military bases—need to be on Russia’s borders.
And they’ve said where they’re going to put them: in the Baltic
republic, Poland and Romania.

Now, why is this important? Because NATO has expanded for 20 years,
but it’s been primarily a political expansion, bringing these countries
of eastern Europe into our sphere of political influence; now it’s
becoming a military expansion. So, within a short period of time, we
will have a new—well, we have a new Cold War, but here’s the difference.
The last Cold War, the military confrontation was in Berlin, far from
Russia. Now it will be, if they go ahead with this NATO decision, right
plunk on Russia’s borders. Russia will then leave the historic nuclear
agreement that Reagan and Gorbachev signed in 1987 to abolish
short-range nuclear missiles. It was the first time nuclear—a category
of nuclear weapons had ever been abolished. Where are, by the way, the
nuclear abolitionists today? Where is the grassroots movement, you know,
FREEZE, SANE? Where have these people gone to? Because we’re looking at
a new nuclear arms race. Russia moves these intermediate missiles now
to protect its own borders, as the West comes toward Russia. And the
tripwire for using these weapons is enormous.

One other thing. Russia has about, I think, 10,000 tactical
nuclear weapons, sometimes called battlefield nuclear weapons. You use
these for short distances. They can be fired; you don’t need an airplane
or a missile to fly them. They can be fired from artillery. But they’re
nuclear. They’re radioactive. They’ve never been used. Russia has about
10,000. We have about 500. Russia’s military doctrine
clearly says that if Russia is threatened by overwhelming conventional
forces, we will use tactical nuclear weapons. So when Obama
boasts, as he has on two occasions, that our conventional weapons are
vastly superior to Russia, he’s feeding into this argument by the
Russian hawks that we have to get our tactical nuclear weapons ready.

Former Polish president – and famed anti-communist activist – Lech Walesa agrees that the U.S. and Nato’s arming of Ukraine could lead to a nuclear war. Cohen also notes that the West has entered into an agreement to
cover-up what happened to Malaysian airlines flight 17, because Russia
was not responsible.

Europe Folds To Russian Demands, Delays Ukraine Free Trade Deal By Over A Year

While the world was poring through the details of the latest round of
preannounced western sanctions against Russia - a round which Russia
commented would have virtually no actual impact - and just as excitedly
awaiting the Kremlin's retaliation which Putin warned is coming shortly,
far from the glare of the center stage Europe quietly folded to
a bigger Russian demand namely to delay the implementation of a Ukraine
free trade deal by more than one year until the end of 2015 and likely
beyond.

As AFP reported,
EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht said, after talks with Russian and
Ukrainian ministers, that the free trade agreement which Ukraine and
its imploding economy had hoped would be implemented in the immediate
future, will instead be delayed. Perhaps the date of the provisional
launch has something to do with it: EU sources said the trade deal was
to have taken effect on November 14, i.e. in the middle of Europe's
cold, snowy, GDP-sapping winter. The European Council of 28 members
states must now sign off on the delay.

De Gucht said that once Kiev ratifies the EU Association Accord,
expected next week and which was negotiated at the same time as the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement, then Brussels would offer "additional flexibility" in the hope of meeting Russian concerns that its economy would suffer if the DCFTA deal went ahead.

This would be done as part of efforts to "fully support the
stabilisation of Ukraine," he said after talks with Ukraine Foreign
Minister Pavlo Klimkin and Russian Economy Minister Alexi Ulyukayev.
"Such flexibilty will consist in the delay until 31 December 2015 of the
provisional application of the DCFTA," he said.

Additional flexibility? That sounds very close to what Obama promised Putin's right hand guy, Dmitry Medvedev, nearly three years ago.

Sometimes glitches in the matrix such as this one make one wonder
just how much of what is going on right now between the "west" and
Russia has been long pre-agreed and pre-approved by the "feuding" sides,
and what is really going on behind the scenes. But back to what the data available for popular consumption: in
effect while Russia and the West are engaging in populism-happy trade
and capital flow wars what is taking place at a higher level is far more
nuanced, and it is here that a far more pragmatic EU is certainly
concerned about pushing Russia too far.

The reason why Moscow is against the Ukraine free trade agreement is
because Russia sees it as bolstering Kiev and potentially harming its
own economy by allowing an influx of cheaper/better EU goods into the
country, an important Russian market. Equally damaging, Moscow said
these goods could then be sold on into Russia itself, damaging domestic
industry.

Of course, with Europe launch sanction after meaningless sanction, in
a world that is all about leverage and optics, the last thing the EU
could afford is to be perceived as folding to the Kremlin in a matter
which could really hurt the Russian economy. So instead DeGucht
presented the delay as win-win for all sides, saying the preferential
tariffs addressed "the very difficult economic situation in Ukraine"
while the delay in implementing the deal leaves "15 months for either
party to make remarks, proposals."

One can just imagine the remarks and proposals that Putin would have uttered had Europe not delayed the agreement.

What's more interesting, Russia may just win another major round in
the political war that is taking place just behind the surface: the
preferential tariffs announced in March and due to expire in October
offered Ukraine significant reductions in customs duties worth about 500
million euros per year, the commission said. Still, had the free trade deal passed today, it would have allowed
the economically devastated Ukraine, whose economy is rapidly imploding,
to boost its exports to Europe by one billion euros per year, according
to the commission.

In June, the EU and Ukraine signed the long-delayed Association
Agreement, the very deal whose 11th-hour refusal last year by then
president Viktor Yanukovich plunged the former Soviet country into
chaos. It sparked a wave of pro-European protests that eventually
toppled the Kremlin-backed Yanukovich in February and ushered in a
pro-Western government that deeply angered Moscow. What goes unsaid is that the signed agreement was merely yet another
optical pseudo intervention: in reality is provided nothing to Ukraine
but simply sent signals to the global community that the "west" had the
upper hand when it comes down to Kiev realpolitik.

If only for now.

But
once the Ukraine people have been forced to go through a full
winter with no benefit from the Russian bear, it remains to be seen just
how enthusiastic they will be about the ongoing western-backed (and
funded, and orchestrated) revolution. As for Europe's true "leverage"
vis-a-vis Russia, the following quote from AFP encapsulates it best:

"If you want to solve a conflict, you have to be flexible," a European source said when asked about the delay in the trade deal.

156 comments:

The strikes in Iraq and Syria have begun. Thus far, they seem to be keeping Damascus and Moscow informed. Their choice of target in Aleppo, however, was very unusual. Khorasan? Why haven't we heard about them before if they are so dangerous as they now tell us? Gut instinct tell me they took the opportunity to hit a group they don't control or who's existence does not serve their interests.

Aroutin: Do you have any information on Khorasan? Have Arabic language social media sites you have been monitoring ever mention their name?

I believe that the Syria strikes are part of a West-Russia deal. The west gave Ukraine and Novorossiya to the Russians, probably as a return Russia would allow them to carry air strikes in Syria. The question is, how far will the West go on bombing Syria? If they start attacking Assad positions, expect escalations in the Middle East or new violence in Novorossiya.

Perhaps. But I don't think so. Novorossiya was Moscow's regardless of anything else. Kiev militarily lost the south-east regions. Kiev realized that if the war continued, fighting would have eventually reached the gates of the capitol. Novorossiya, like Artsakh, will never go back to where it was. What Moscow would have been willing to make a deal over are the economic sanctions imposed by the West. Nevertheless, regardless of any deals that may or may not happen, Moscow will not accept removing Assad from power in Syria. What Moscow may eventually accept is the partitioning of Syria. The fact is the nation of Syria is dead. The fighting now is about who will get what after the final bomb explodes. After the war there stops, a new nation, or nations, will emerge. All are currently maneuvering for the best seat in the house...

Because Novorossiya was Moscow's regardless of anything else, the West decided to stop fighting for it early on, with perhaps asking permission from Moscow for bombing certain places in Syria. That's the only logical explanation that can be found. Contrary to last summer, not much opposition was raised by Moscow and Tehran when the West announced it is to bomb IS positions in Iraq and Syria. The Syria bombings would not have been possible without Moscow's approval, regardless of the bombing areas are Syrian or IS positions.

Yes, Moscow too will accept the partitioning of Syria, no one is arguing that. Perhaps this bombing is also part of that partitioning deal.

It was obvious from the beginning that Moscow would negotiate Syria's fate with the West, for Syria is not a big red line for Moscow. Moscow only cares about preserving its naval base in Tartus and that region. If Syria is partitioned for the time being, Moscow may accept it as long as a pro-Russian regime rules on the Mediterranean and Damascus regions (the Alawite populated places in this case). Incidentally, those were the first places that were secured by the Syrian Army. Aleppo is not that important for the time being for Syria.

I don't agree with Svediatsi. No one traded anything in regards to Ukraine and Syria. Washington still wants to win. Also, lets not celebrate a Novorossia victory here yet. Novorossia scored a number of tactical victories. They are only tactical in nature right now. Slavyansk, Mariupol, all of eastern Donetsk, and all of northern Lugansk are still controlled by Kiev.

The fight continues, and it doesn't necessarily have to be with the firing of artillery. It can be by way of "hearts and minds" and government building. Novarossia exists only in name so far, there is no government Novarossia built.

This isn't like Artsakh. Artsakh's victory wasn't only on the battlefield, the main victory was state formation with all the institutions attached to it. Novarossia doesn't even have law enforcement as of it. Militiamen have been regulating traffic on the streets of Donetsk. Furthermore, Ukr troops and "national guard" battalions are in dug in, in some heavily re-inforced points where just for the heck of it they fire artillery shells and Grad rockets. Kiev's plan seems to now be to be as disruptive as possible for civil life.

The liberation struggle for Artsakh began in 1988. It only began succeeding in 1992. And any semblance of a true government in the territory began evolving only after that. The situation in Novorossiya is very much like what was occurred in Artsakh during the early stages of the conflict there. Eventually, all of the regions in question will come under Russian influence one way or another.

This blog entry is some of the best work you've done lately Arevordi, thank you. After a year of trying to make sense of what exactly the end games were in Syria and in the Ukraine, things are starting to make sense. While massacres and small-scale genocides have become the norm in the Middle East and everywhere else that the Anglo-American-Zionist alliance has meddled in, particularly of minorities like Christians and Yezidis, there is a great risk that things could spiral out of control and lead to a devastating war with global reverberations. There are a lot of things worth commenting on, but right now I just want to highlight the increasingly belligerent rhetoric coming out of the controlled PR outlets. And not just the usual "Putin is Hitler and he kills puppies for fun" garbage they normally church out. Jewess whore Anna Applebaum's "War in Europe is not a hysterical idea" and several other notable pieces attempting to rationalize and glorify war is truly a disturbing sign of a nation and society on a self-destructive path. If anything can be used to argue that "America as it once existed is dead" that would be it.

Former Jew Nathanael Kapner gives pretty much the same explanation in his newest video as in this blog entry, along with a few interesting video clips of US and Israeli officials including "friend of Armenia" Samatha Power:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JaTjSKjJe0&index=1&list=UUtBqVgzL_cDv_t9o2hFiXXg

There is no Khorasan organization that I have previously heard of anywhere. Google search also has no reference to khorasan until a week ago, mentioned by western media. In Islamic ideology, the awaited Mehdi Muntazar is anticipated to rise from Khorasan region (central asia/Iran border).

Khorasan crap is possibly signs of US-Syrian co-ordination. If US were to bomb rebel held areas in Syria (non-ISIS), around Aleppo and Idlib (non ISIS there), then they must come up with a convincing story line, ah yes, the scary Khorasans.

This saves face for Obomba who wanted to overthrow Assad 3 years ago and now needs his help to control out-of-control Islamic elements. Just my 2 cents.

PS: USA can't risk airstrikes without Syria-Iranian-Russian coordination. It's a recipe for disaster. I think under the table there is some agreement for a new world order being cooked.

Turkey may be approaching a final deal with Kurds. The problem always lied with the PKK militants. The ISIS attacks on Kurds in Syria (Ayn al Arab) and places like Sinjar is a good incentive to push PKK militants out of Turkey. Ocalan calling for all out war against ISIShttp://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140923/ocalan-urges-all-out-kurdish-resistance-against

Finally, I think,None of the current powers can afford the economic costs of Cold War II. None of the current powers want World War III cause we know that means the usage of nuclear weapons = obliteration of the planet = everyone looses

They tried the Islamic card against Syria, but Syria also played that same card aka. ISIS (I know we disagree on this point). Israel now finds itself surrounded with an unstable Egypt, unstable Syria, unstable Lebanon. And soon, perhaps, unstable Jordan (longest border).US primary interest in the region is to ensure the security of Israel.

So maybe they all finally came to realize they messed up, now is time to clean up.

You still believe in the supernatural prowess of the Syrian government? Damascus is so capable that is has actually tricked Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar into supporting ISISI to the tunes of thousands of volunteers from around the world and untold sums of money? Damascus is so confident of its abilities that just when it began winning the war against Islamic terrorists in Syria it decided to trick Western powers into turning their attention back onto Syria and Iraq?.... Perhaps. But I don't think so.

Part 1Let me clear up some things.Normally, the Americans want to blow at the Syrian-Iranian-Russian axis. Attempts to single out any one of these nations and negotiating without reverting to the interests of the other alliance members might play advantageous to the nation coming out of the alliance. Ofcourse this is dangerous, but can happen.

This ISIS is a self created phenomena that is partially nurtured by some other national or private entities. The AngloZionists first thought it would be a good idea to install Muslim Brotherhood givernments in the Arab world, they would operate under the leadership of the Turkish Caliphate who also operates under the Anglo Zionist intelligence network. This was also meant to reverse the Islamophobia prevalent in Europe, by encouraging Muslims to migrate to their original homelands and Syria. We saw this in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and Gaza. Al Qaeda then objected that such a step would outstrip its jihadi wing in those countries, thereby reducing its operational range. However Assad's endurance in the face of Erdogan's assault ended in an epic fail. Anyone forgot when Erdogan the stooge was numbering the weeks Assad will fall, based on input he was receiving from the Americans.That dynamic flow of muslim movement geared toward Syria picked up its own momentum and some smart ass person initiated the project called ISIS, the epic hit in this whole movie is to have called it a Caliphate, and appointed a self proclaimed Caliph, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi.

This creates a massive tear in the Sunni Islamic world. If Muslims were to follow the Caliph, who then shall follow his Royal Highness the King of Saudi Arabia? The Islamic State of Syria and Iraq puts the Wahabis of Baghdad against the Wahabis of Saud.The US strikes on ISIS in Syria is like a forced self invitation, in a way, asking Assad for co-operation to eliminate ISIS without suffering the embarrassment of formally requesting to strik. We all know air strikes cannot fulfill the job of eliminating the militants, only ground forces can retake these territories. So who shall it be? Seems like the Syrian and/or Iranian army is the one to lead this role, cause it takes some years for US to train the required forces able to accomplish this task without screwing it up.Saudi is jumping forward by taking a leadership role in this war, supposedly by hosting training sites for some 5,000 militants.In reality Saudi Arabia is trying to assert its Sunni leadership role in the region, that role faces competition from Turkey who seeks the same role, but not so ready yet to actively fight ISIS.Ironically, its role to lead the Sunnis puts it face to face with the hard core Sunnis themselves.More ironically, the Saudi population has the highest percentage of people who embrace the ISIS ideology, that makes a recipe for the perfect storm, competing for ruling power inside Saudi Arabia, a land of massive wealth.

Part 2The US efforts to fight ISIS in fact is an attempt to protect and secure Saudi Arabia.The US will try to break the Russo-Iranian-Syrian axis by expressing co-operation will to Iran and Syria. This calls for some Saudi-Iranian high level talks, and so is happening.There is the upcoming Iran's Nuclear talks sometime in November. So the diplomacy track will be activated in the foreseeable future.

Israel does not like to think of any Iranian-Saudi rapprochement. Neither does Israel like to see any Iran-US rapprochement. That will shrink its geopolitcal role dramatically n the eyes of US policy. Consider how much of geopolitical outreach Iran can offer, stretching from Central Asia to the Mediterranean through Iraq and Syria.Then begs the question, who ditched who? Russia ditched Syria or vice versa? Why didn't Russia provided the necessary anti-air defences to Syria? Why was its skies and its coasts exposed? Where is Russia's defensive umbrella to protect Syria?or perhaps noone ditch anybody and this is a ploy against the US to draw her into a protracted war against Islam? who knows.

Perhaps Syria and Iran took the US offer because Russia was not able to protect Syria'S airspace, having been overly occupied in Ukraine? Perhaps Putin threw Assad under the bus having himself taken a deal in Ukraine that Russia could not refuse.

If any betrayal from any side indeed took place, then it means the US led Arab alliance will get rid of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. This means two things, death or relocation.Nobody likes to die, and honestly I'm not seeing any hundreds of air strikes launched every day like when US bombed Iraq during Saddam. It's almost there is no ongoing war. If the threat was as serious as claimed, they should have nuked all of Raqqa by now, yet, life is splendid and lively in Raqqa.

That means relocation. Whereto? What better place than Khorasan? In Central Asia, somewhere between Russia and China, perhaps, Kyrgyzstan... ofcourse caucasus also is a good place to poke Russia. Georgia by the way has just offered to host training camp for Syrian rebels, its not a jokehttp://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/09/23/exclusive_georgia_offers_to_host_training_camp_for_syrian_rebels

When it comes to the Islamic card, this is my take, if you don't play the game, then someone else does, and you'll find yourself being chased. Therefore, Isis or Khorasan, all shall play that game. So it is very likely that Isis might act in a way you think serves Assad, and acts in another way that serves Israel. They take all offers, but do their own shit at the end of the day.

We in Hizb ut Tahrir in Kyrgyzstan wish to address President Atambayev (of Kyrgyzstan)!

We advise you not to take a hostile position towards Islam and Muslims, as Karimov did; because we are determined to resume the Islamic way of life and fight the Kuffar (unbelievers) and all their oppressive policies against Kyrgyzstan and all other Muslim countries on the basis of the Islamic creed. We will not accept that Muslims fight with each other in any way!

We think, actually believe, that you do not harbor any hostile feelings against the Muslims, but at the same time we recognize that you are subjected to the pressures exercised by those stuck in mud swamps, the likes of Karimov and Putin, and we encourage you not to hesitate to stand by Islam and the Muslims and support them, and stand not by Kufr and the Kuffar.

We advise that you do not end up as a "weapon" in the hands of the criminal Kuffar against Muslims in the battle of Islam and Kufr. Otherwise, we also in Kyrgyzstan, with the help of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, will show steadfastness and resilience that the whole Islamic world will know about. However, we ask Allah سبحانه وتعالى that these feelings are manifested in our struggle against the Kuffar, and not with Muslims.

Head of the Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir in Kyrgyzstan

PS: Kyrgyzstan is on the list to join Eurasian Union next after Armenia.

I don't have time to address the developments in Yemen (pro-Iran Houthi takeover). It has a significant impact on the geopolitical landscape of the middle east.

I'd like to hear more about Yemen. I know that the civil war there between Shiites and Sunnis have been going on for ten years but there has been next to no coverage of it by the Western press. And I haven't been looking into it either. But, are the Iranian-backed Shiites there that powerful or did Riyadh and the West simply not care enough about defeating the rebellion? The mentioned two seemed much more proactive in trying to defeat the Shiite rebellion in Bahrain...

Let us furnish some facts:1-Iran favors to maintain the axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon2- The Anglo-American-Turko-Wahabi-Zionists seek to break this axis3- Attempts to isolating each of Syria and Iraq, serves to weaken the Iranian axis4- By toppling the Assad regime, the Iranian axis is broken5-The AngloZionists tried to repeat Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood scenario in Syria6- Erdogan's Muslim Brotherhood plan failed due to the fall of Mursi7- The endurance of the Assad regime was partly due to Russia's objections to NATO air strikes8- Russia pushed its naval fleet into the Mediterranean9- The influx of Islamic Jihadists into Syria through Turkey and Jordan found fertile soil in Syria to breed, in numbers and ideas10- Russia was forced into militarily tension on its Eastern Front and the Black Sea due to Ukraine11- On March 18 2014, Russia and Crimea signed a treaty of accession into the Russian Federation12- On March 27, the UN General Assembly passed a non-binding Resolution 68/262 that declared the Crimean referendum invalid and the incorporation of Crimea into Russia illegal13- On March 27, access to YouTube was blocked in Turkey a day after it carried a leaked National Security meeting conversation that seemingly revealed Head of Turkish Intelligence Hakan Fidan, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, and others, plotting "false flag" operations in Syria.

In this leaked recording, we find high ranking Turks admiting the following two factsA- The Islamic groups operating in Syria such as ISIS are extremely open to manipulation.B- The Turks do not have the situation under control and are reflecting on backlashesFeridun Siniroğlu: That ISIL and all that jazz, all those organisations are extremely open to manipulation. Having a region made up of organisations of similar nature will constitute a vital security risk for usAhmet Davutoğlu: Guns and ammo are not a big need for that place. Because we couldn't get the human factor in order...Base on all the furnished facts, I reaffirm my conclusion that ISIS, Khorasan or any other Tarazan Islamic groups may work for any intelligence agency, local and international. Regarding Yemen, to make a long story short.The most remarkable thing in all this, is that the Houthis did not gain position due to shearly military power, but the Yemeni government and mostly Shia Houthis have actually signed a landmark agreement to end the political crisis. So it was reconciliatory move rather than a clash. This Iranian-Houthi gain in Yemen puts Saudi Arabia under serious risk, why? The region know as the Hijaz (now in Saudi Arabia) is a natural extension of Yemen, and its population predominantly are against the House of Saud.So very briefly, this means from now on Saudi Arabia cannot extend any security services to any other country, since it will have to deal with threats within its own territory coming from Yemen's border and Shia pockets near Bahrain and Kuweit. With an almost dead King and a Wahabi population in middle Saudi Arabia around Riyadh, things can only get worse if no mitigation measures are taken (such as sudden talks with Iran in New York).This means that regimes like those in Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, UAE cannot anymore expect a Saudi umbrella, and that, will bring them closer therefore to Iran. US back-up was called into the region as a compensation of Saudi and Turkish shortcomings.The upcoming Mecca pilgrimage has just kicked in where al Shiia and Sunnis from the World are concentrate. The crescendo of the Hajj will be on October 3 next week. So its either reconciliation or blood.

Religious map of the region, notice the demographic continuity from Yemen's Sanaa, into Saudi Arabia (Abha and Zahran) cities and beyond http://thesinosaudiblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/mid-east-religion.jpg

This is historic maphttp://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/cbig/FirstSaudi.jpg

Hijaz-Asir region on the Red sea were ruled by the Saudis at later stages, by the people of Najd in central Saudi Arabia.

The language dialect also is a bit different, the Hijazis have an Egyptian influence.

Also the Najd people faith strongly correlate with Wahabism.

So, changes in Yemen have an impact on Saudi policies and maneuvering capabilities to say the least.

One last thing I want to highlight, the Houthis were able to consolidate their power grip by advocating issues that touch majority of Yemeni citizens, most importantly, the reduction of fuel prices by 25%.

Closer look at Yemen, it makes clear that the rebel-government deal was between the Zaidi Shiias (in the North) and Shafii Sunnis (in the south)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Madhhab_Map2.png

The Saudis meanwhile belong to the Hanbali school.

The Hanbali school gave birth to the Wahhabi-Salafist movement. Historically the school was a minority and its propagation in Saudi Arabia was greatly aided by the 18th to early-20th century militancy of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Al Saud.

The Shafi'i school is the dominant school of jurisprudence amongst Muslims in the Hejaz region of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Egypt, Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, the North Caucasus, Kurdistan and Maldives.

This gives Tehran control over Bab-el-Mandeb strait in addition to Hormuz

Because at the time when there is an active and evolving situation in Syria, Iraq and Libya, the Anglos can't in addition handle Yemen and set up a proper military response (at least not for now - that will suck resources from other regions in the greater theater - they get too outstrecthed).

The Saudis could not do to Yemen what they did in Bahrain, i.e. invade.Bahrain: population 1.4 million - Area 750 Square Km - unarmed populationYemen: population 24 million - Area 527,000 Square Km - 100,000 strong Houthi armed militia

But only because the media was not talking about Yemen, does not mean they (US-Saudis) were not taking it seriously. The US military was very active in Yemen specially in Drone strikes, Saudi Arabia also lended full support to the Yemeni government's crackdown on Houthi. The Anglo-Zionists were fully backing their puppet dictator Abdallah Saleh, who after getting wounded by rebel attack, was even taken to the US for treatment. Any intensification of the Yemeni situation plays against the Angloz and they will need much more lies to justify intervention to topple regime in Syria meanwhie intervening to suppress the Yemeni people in support of their puppet president.

It's just my opinion.What do you think? Why couldn't they prevent a Houthi takeover?

I have not been following events in Yemen. I therefore do not know why they (Anglo-American-Zionists and Saudis) allowed a Houthi takeover. However, your explanation makes sense. But still, they could have provided the regime in Sannaa with arms, money and PR via the global media they control. Although what you said may certainly have been a factor, I still think they could have done more to protect the regime but for some reason they didn't.

I have another question: How active has Iran been in Yemen? Does Tehran have an official representation inside rebel territory in Yemen? Have they been supplying arms to the rebels? If so, why hasn't it been publicly addressed by Western powers and their regional allies? In other words, how deep and how far back do ties between Tehran and the Houthis go?

Anyway, thank you again. Please keep us informed of new developments there.

Moscow has finally gotten around to addressing Western inroads in a crucially strategic sector in Russian society, its mass media. Foreign ownership in Russian media outlets is to be limited to 20%. By embarking on these types of national security issues, it is only natural that the Kremlin will come into conflict with people in Russia that became very wealthy and influential during the chaotic years following the Soviet collapse. When Moscow thus comes into conflict with its nouveau riche, it is only natural that is will begin cracking down on them if they pose a threat to the state or if don't comply with state regulations. Ultimately, we need to keep in mind that it was Western machinations against the Russian state that has gotten us to where we are today. We also need to recognize that while Russia needs Western expertize - it needs to curb its dependence on Western money even more. In my opinion, the best way forward in this regard is to limit its exposure to the Anglo-American-Zionist world and concentrate on better relations with Germany and France. Nevertheless, Russia needs to shed its 1990s era toxicity. The process to detoxify may hurt a little, but Russia, as an independent state, will be much better off in the long term. In the meanwhile, more power to the Russian state. I am glad to see that it's being built on the sound principles of national socialism.

Foreign participation in Russian mass media to be restricted to 20% in 2016: http://en.itar-tass.com/opinions/1917

Russia Steps Up New Law to Control Foreign Internet Companies: http://online.wsj.com/articles/russia-steps-up-new-law-to-control-foreign-internet-companies-1411574920

Excepted from NEW HISTORY of the JEWSBy Eustace MullinsIn all of recorded history, there was only one civilization which the Jews could not destroy. Because of this, they have given it the silent treatment. Few American college graduates with a Ph.D. degree could tell you what the Byzantine Empire was.

It was the Empire of East Rome, set up by Roman leaders after the Jews had destroyed Rome. This empire functioned in Constantinople for twelve hundred years, the longest duration of any empire in the history of the world.

Throughout the history of Byzantium, as it was known, by imperial edict, no Jew was allowed to hold any post in the Empire, nor was he allowed to educate the young. The Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Turks after twelve centuries of prosperity, and the Jews have attempted to wipe out all traces of its history.

Yet its edicts against the Jews were not cruel; in fact, the Jews lived unmolested and prosperously in the empire throughout its history, but here alone the vicious cycle of host and parasite did not take place.

It was a Christian civilization, and the Jews were not able to exercise any influence. Nor did the Orthodox priests bewilder their congregations with any vicious lies about Christ being a Jew.

No wonder the Jews want to eradicate the memory of such a culture.

It was Ezra Pound who launched upon a study of Byzantine civilization, and who reminded the world of this happily non-Jewish land.

From the Byzantines, Pound derived his no-violent formula for controlling the Jews.

"The answer to the Jewish problem is simple," he said.

"Keep them out of banking, out of education, out of government."

And this is how simple it is.

There is no need to kill the Jews. In fact, every pogrom in history has played into their hands, and has in many instances been cleverly instigated by them.

Get the Jews out of banking and they cannot control the economic life of the community.

Get the Jews out of education and they can not pervert the minds of the young to their subversive doctrines.

"There is another aspect to this for us Armenians. Had Russia been like the West, where powerful lobbies and moneymen initiate political discourse, Russians would have sold Armenia to the Turks or Azeris a very long time ago."

Arevordi could have not said any better.

Pres. Sargsyan's recent speech at UN was a powerful one. More and more we see a confident Armenia with Russia's support. erdogan is getting angry and desperate, Der Zhor Armenian church bombing was surely his order.

This Lavrov interview was the best for last 5 months, a lot of between the lines info.

" Similar to how they have turned Russia into the new enemy to protect Europe from, as they pursue their self-serving imperial agenda of curbing the rise of Russian influence in the region, ISIS will henceforth be the new enemy to protect the Middle East from, as they pursue their self-serving imperial agenda of curbing the rise of Iranian influence in the region. For Washingtonian reptiles, Russophobic racists in eastern Europe and Iranophobic Wahhabists in the Middle East therefore essentially serve the exact same geostrategic purpose."

This comment makes more sense to me than all the news reports I read put together.

Obama practically stated WWIII with Russia at his UN speech. All this talk about the West and Russia agreeing to swap Syria for Ukraine is a nice fantasy created by Chaos Ink. Note how people have been derailing this thread with nonsense.This is not the first time I have dispelled myths, take this as a warning I will dispel more, including the one about this silly swap, note the cheerleaders on the sidelines reinforcing the nonsensical view. My guess is that Arevordi, and a few of the rest of us have done such a fine job that it has warranted special treatment. Hence the cheerleaders and the sidetrackers.

What is amusing about all this is not really amusing. Considering the nonsensical moves made by the West. When you consider Ukraine or you would like the broach the subject of the Middle East. When one really looks at the Western approach to all this insanity, one only needs to realize that the games being played here by some of the late comers is only but a subset of the greater picture of stupidity. Teams of folks getting paid good money by the American taxpayer can only muster a bunch of clowns posting on this forum. When you consider the same kind of clowns running the circus in the international realm, one can forgive them for their indiscretions on this forum, but to be fair I have to warn them not to ever take Armenians lightly.

I realize its all speculation (based on my observations of past history and what I see happening currently) but I personally think they are slowly/carefully cultivating a new reality on the ground. Using the ISIS bogyman as the new excuse, they are trying to establish a powerful military presence in Iraq and Syria. Some time in the near future, I think they will gradually begin moving against the Assad government in one way or another. I want to emphasize that they are doing all this slowly, covertly and cautiously due to their fears of how Russia and Iran will react. Nevertheless, realize that by directly being in the theater of war, Western powers now don't necessarily have to attack Assad's government directly to influence the course of events on the ground. The West will not directly attack Syrian forces if Assad's government, Russia and Iran are prepared to fight back in any meaningful way. But, like I said, Anglo-American-Zionist forces with their allies in Ankara and Riyadh, no longer have to attack Assad's forces directly. This is why we are now seeing great effort being placed into training and arming Syria's anti-Assad rebels under the now "legitimate" pretext of fighting ISIS. Anyone objecting to the Western agenda now will be seen as supporting the genocidal maniacs of ISIS. Even in case there has been a deal reached on the partitioning of Syria, Western powers would want to be right there on the ground with a powerful presence to influence any outcome. It's all therefore a matter of geostrategic maneuverings and conflict management. How Syria will look in the future is not clear but it is certainly headed towards some form of a partition. The exact nature of the alliance between Assad's government, Iran and Russia is also unclear, although I think Moscow will do all it can to preserve a Russia-friendly Alewite government along the coast of Syria.

Note: From what I have gathered, the name Khorasan seems to be just another name for the Al-Qaeda off-shoot known as Al-Nusra. Al-Nusra, unlike its parent Al-Qaeda, was a semi-independent terror group that had its origin during the Western occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. As you know, Al-Nusra was fighting ISIS throughout Syria. It is therefore interesting that they were one of the first ones getting hit.

U.S. Considers a No-Fly Zone to Protect Civilians From Airstrikes by Syria: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/world/middleeast/us-considers-a-no-fly-zone-to-protect-civilians-from-airstrikes-by-syria-.html?_r=0

Thanks for posting these interesting links Aroutin, they were informative and contributed to clearing the picture around the current Middle East game.

I am not convinced that any sort of deal has been cut between Russia and the US regarding Syria and/or Ukraine - but I could be wrong. I base my position on a few keys facts, namely that the US spent the entire year creating chaos in Ukraine in order to "distract" Russia while at the same time they created ISIS in order to justify and build public support for their planned re-invasion of the Middle East and subversion of Syria. It does not seem logical to me that the US would cut a deal right as its crappy plan was achieving its maximum returns.

Also, the US is no longer a country with any logic or long-term thought in its foreign policy. It is a decedent super-power suffering from delusions of "exceptionalism" and "manifest destiny" and is further being driven down into the sewers by letting special interests like banks, multinational corporations, zionists, dispensationalist "christian" zionists, the military-industrial complex, the energy industry, and interventionist simpletons set foreign policy objectives. Such a messed up nation will not give up its attempts to dominate the entire world. If Russia hypothetically cut a deal with Ukraine, it would only be a temporary and limited Russian gain (Novorossiya) at the cost of losing Russian influence in the Middle East. American calculations would just be "well the regime change in Ukraine was successful in 2004, failed in 2014... let's continue the psych-ops and NGO routine for another decade and try again in a few years." Similarly, the Anglo-Americans (and wannabe superpower France) have considered the Middle East their private property since even before Sykes-Picot. If any deal allows the west to consolidate its assets in or around Syria, it will only be a short matter of time before the west tries again to topple Assad and create a Sunni fireball between the key Shiite/Alawite players in the region... Let's not forget that Syria and Iran are the ultimate targets of Israel as well as western gas companies.

BTW ISIS appears to temporarily be working wonders at convincing the cattle of the US that "we need to take action in the Middle East NOW(!)" because beheadings are so terrible... At least when ISIS does the beheading it's terrible, America's Saudi ally beheads two people a week on average but gets a free pass:

Of course the ISIS effect will not last nearly as long as 9/11 did because Americans have a very short attention spans and ISIS is still something that only exists in videos and news reports, so I suspect either the Western leaders are going to try something big/bigger in the Middle East soon, or they are going to have to fall back on the "a new Pearl Harbor" idea once again. Either way hubris and recklessness on their part will end up causing more and more damage around the world.

Of course the above is just my own educated guess, we cannot know for certain what happens behind the scenes. I just don't have faith in the US, with leaders of Nuland and McCain quality, to manage to get the Kremlin to cut a deal over areas of strategic interest.

Everything you have said is spot on and I could not agree more. America does not know what it has, she is wasting all the advantages she has, and part of the problem is that short of 9/11 nothing bad has really happened to the US. Countries have fallen, millions of people displaced, chaos has taken over a large part of the Middle East, not to mention Ukraine. The dollar is still the dollar, the stock market is still the stock market, yet she is waning and does not even see the actions taken today will be negative come tomorrow. So long as the US does not suffer any real blowback she is going to keep sawing chaos.

The only true enemy of democracy is the US. For when all is said and done, the world is going to revert to old ways of doing things and democracy is not part of the recipe. Sadly democracy is not in the interest of the US at this point either, long before the seeds of chaos have born fruit. America is spying on all her citizens, yet still can't manage to stop credit cards numbers from being stolen. Every phone call is recorded yet they can't catch common thieves?

For generations having a judge grant the right to spy, has been done away with on the fly snooping. Her glorious past, her wonderful achievements have been done away with for the sake of convenience.

This convenience has translated to the international realm, when no one trusts a single word the US spews. This is a disaster in the making and we shall all suffer for it. Let us only hope that democracy does not go away for another 2000 years before we discover the meaning of the term once more.

I thought the law assumed you were not guilty until you were proven to be so? What happened to the rule of law?

BTW I think this is just a smoke screen, they are still spying without a warrant but want you to think they are not, as both Apple and Google are spying, you are supposed to be a good droogie and keep on thinking that there is freedom and justice while your credit cards are stolen because someones brother in law wants to go shopping with your money. As they are not above the law you see, they are the law.

For any "expats" that may be lurking around: The above article from November 2003 reminds us that the Jews have long been establishing a hive inside South Africa. Their concept of "tikun olam" knows no limits, they'd do the same in every BRICS nation if they could.

Jews in SA ? The Jews control the heart and engines of SA. They always did , since Imperial times. It is not a hive, it is an israeli/jew colony. The monkey Mugabe cleared all European vestiges from his stupid land, a paradise under Ian Smith;s days. However there is only one mighty magnate left in zimbzbwe, and he goes under the name of " a british", in fact he is a chosenite and he controlls 70% of land holdings in Zimbzbwe. If this chosenite baron, always stays behind the curtain, decides to lift a finger and Mugabe can start orbiting the nether.

A very uplifting news clip. Contains footage and information of President Sargsyan's visit to Armenian factories using all-German equipment, a few Russian-Armenian joint businesses, and renovations and improvements developing outside of Yerevan.

L.G., you once mentioned (in an email if I'm not mistaken) you'd like to see Russian weapons manufacturers being using Armenian components in order to address Azeri purchases of Russian weapons. The video contains footage of "Made in Armenia" components used in Mikoyan and Sukhoi warplanes. This won't discourage the Azeris, but it is noteworthy anyway. The dumbass Azeris are so proud that they designated the MiG-29 as "the primary/official aircraft of the Azeri Air Force," I guess they do not mind the fact that the aircraft bears the name of an Armenian engineer and uses Made in Armenia components.

ps I understand the economics of exporting to Iran, but let me point out that I am not fond of the idea of "halal" meat being produced inside Armenia. The semetic religions judaism and islam have idiotic rules regarding "kosher" and "halal" meat that necessitate a lot of cruel and unnecessary suffering by the animals in order to appease their fairy desert deities yahweh and allah. I'm not against eating meat, but I have to oppose these pointless and evil belief systems.

kosher cruelty - do not view if you are sensitive to animal crueltyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlHVin56U2w#t=57m04s

The cruel treatment of animals was the main reason why Hitler actually encouraged most of his inner circle and the military leaders to give up meat: because he described how the animals were slaughtered in a rather vicious way in such graphic detail. It also made sense that animal welfare was really popular in Nazi Germany during that time, and for one thing, Armenia could benefit from taking care of its animal population within its borders.

Azeris really don't know the meaning of irony, right? The fact that they don't mind buying a fighter plane that has an Armenian manufacturer really speaks volumes about anti-Armenian sentiment and its hypocrisy in Azerbaijan. I mean, they could have opted for Sukhois and Yakovlevs, but they settled for a MiG?

I agree with you Jerriko. Animals and other topics like abortion are beyond the scope of this blog, but they are helpful in assessing a nation's values, morality and spiritual health.

It's too bad that for every problematic aspect which occurs in human society like animal abuse, pollution, religious extremism, poor treatment of women, and specially corruption, there is a western plan and several organizations designed to exploit those problems and natural growing pains for the purpose of advancing western interests and globalist, nation-destroying ideas. The west has made attempts at political activism and reform into a serious danger for nations like Armenia. And our politically and spiritually underdeveloped citizenry does not help the situation, and neither do the naive and idealistic, western-trained college students or the western NGOs and propaganda outlets.

As for the Azeris, they do more to earn the label of "Azerbaboon" than any of their enemies could hope for. Whether it is honoring a fucking axe murderer as a national hero(!) or bulldozing medieval Armenian cemeteries on camera, or pretending that their country, whose name did not appear in history until about 1917, actually has ancient claims to Yerevan and all of Eastern Armenia. The only way to deal with such primitive beasts is to lord over them militarily and keep them in constant fear that at any moment we can march all to way to their capital. Like Arevordi says, Armenia's neighbors are not Swiss or Icelandic, the only way for Armenia to ensure peace is to be eternally prepared for war and victory.

Off topic, but this Black woman has more courage and political integrity than most politicians, including the "leaders" of the Armenian Diaspora in the west and their heroes like Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney

Her credits include the 9/11 Truth Movement, Free Palestine causes, and returning to elected office AFTER being forced out for a term due to jew money and pressure (a very rare accomplishment). Too bad there is a media blackout regarding her notable career.

Also, where is all of that American "exceptionalism" and "don't mess with America" attitude regarding the zionist entities undiplomatic (to say the least) treatment of this woman? Usually when a Black is arrested, whether or not it was justified, the media whores and celebrity "politicians" are out in force to condemn the conduct. When White Americans or Europeans arrest Blacks, it's a reason to incite riots. When the almighty zionists do far worse, not a peep out of the talking heads. This is what ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government) is all about.

If what the article claims in the last few paragraphs is accurate than the planned railway connecting Armenia's network to that of Iran's will disappear. Currently it doesn't make much sense because the railway connecting Armenia to Russia via Abkhazia is closed and in disrepair.

Interview with a young woman from anna-news:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSucNk4jDvc#t=401

24 years old, worked as a florist before. Her friend was killed so she went into the army of Novarossia afterwards. Most females are doing medical type work, kitchen and humanitarian, this one took part in battles.

Excellent. I hope the recent series of arrests of corrupt or uncooperative businessmen ("oligarchs") heralds an era of Russian National Socialism, with a focus on corporate growth aimed at achieving maximum benefit for the Russian state.

There are tons of examples of developing the national economy through smart state intervention. Hitler's Germany is the gold standard. More recent examples include South Korea through heavily state-supported Samsung and other large corporations. Japan's large businesses also serve as a good model.

Here's a good laugh: The Western psychological warfare division based in Armenia and operating under the disguise of "independent press" can publish any type of libel that it wants, from baseless allegations against Armenian officials, to derogatory and racist incitement against Artsakh Armenians (their "Karabakh Clan" bullshit) and all manner of insults against Russia, Iran and other allies of Armenia. Hell the Armenia-based, US State department funded "Armenia Liberty" refuses to officially refer to the Armenian Genocide as "Armenian Genocide" but instead uses Turkish-style "Armenians claim in 1915..." But according to the ARF media, some cunt named Shushan Doydoyan is the end-all "expert" (Armenia must hold the world record for per-capita experts who espouse pseudo-sociological and pseudo-geopolitical bullshit) and according to her Armenia just isn't free enough.

There are currently people in jail in the west for merely questioning aspects of the holocaust. Edgar J. Steele (wife half-Armenian if anyone is interested) was recently either murdered or deliberately neglected to death in the USA in legal proceedings which violated every aspect of historical law and order. But no, never mind all that, there are just not enough anti-Russian media outlets in Armenia, therefore there must not be any freedom. So says "Reporters without Borders" an organization based in France, a country that has been arming and training the Islamist rebels who have caused so much death and destruction to the Armenians in Kessab and Der Zor.

Khadarkovsky did not learn the khodorkovsky lesson, he is also on a rampage lately. Both of them are giving interviews on American TV, talking about how dangerous Putin is, how Russia is doomed to collapse, and how they are ready to become presidents.

The reason the pro-american liberal rats in Russian establishment are out in force, is because uncle Sam has thrown them the gauntlet - but so has Putin. Putin as set an obvious course for independent Russia -- which means the pro-American fat cats either have to become like the people and lose their "privileged" status or they have to seize power for themselves. They don't have an option of comming to the west, because the west won't let them, the west needs them to stir the pot in Russia -- so they are desperate. Personally, him and khodorkovsky should be kept healthy and not make martyrs out of them -- they are utterly despised, which is a sad thing how Kasparov went. From fame to disdain.

Off topic. This story really stands out for me. It features so many elements that illustrate how far American society has fallen. Thank God Armenia's position within the Russian sphere will be even more official on October 10. The degenerate west is the antthesis of the type of values we want for Armenia.

Hail Mother Russia and the Putin government's decision to halt the further spread of toxic globalist subversions from the west into Russia. From cracking down on western-linked NGOs, oligarchs, businesses, media, organizations, and IT to halting the western-funded homosexuals and Islamists in Russia, to forging new international alliances and truly independent financial networks. We are witnessing the historical rise of Russia, and by extension all that which traditional European values represented, against the tyranny of Anglo-American-Zionist globalism and destruction of nations.

As for this specific case, Russia benefits neither from having faggots adopt and corrupt Russian orphans, nor from having naive Russian students brainwashed in western indoctrination centers. In all seriousness, as a very recent graduate I can firmly state that western higher educational institutes are full of idiots with infantile understandings of history and geopolitics outside of what the government feeds them.

More on the subject in the link below. The link targets liberals, but the same logic applies for what passes as "conservatives" in the US:http://www.tomatobubble.com/libtards.html

Take the evidence for what it's worth. The US will never give up its Monroe-doctrine era claims of supremacy over the whole of South America, much to the detriment of both the citizenry of South America (who suffer under corrupt puppets and exploitation) and to the detriment of the citizenry of the United States (whose government squanders their taxes on foreign escapades that produce profits for businesses while the US continues to crumble internally). The fact that Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba and others are developing very close bonds to Russia as well as to China further emboldens the west to action. Recent attacks on Argentina's economy have been in the same vein.

See Also:

John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"Extended Interview 2008https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqIHKWd9rSc

The Islamic State Opens Its First Consulate in Turkey`s Capital. Issuing Visas to Foreign Fightershttp://www.globalresearch.ca/the-islamic-state-opens-its-first-consulate-in-turkeys-capital-issuing-visas-to-foreign-fighters/5405811?print=1

The games the Turks and Americans are playing with Syria would be laughable if it did not involve so much death and destruction. Now they are talking about limited Turkish military incursions to combat the "terrorists" in the north of Syria, as well as talking about "no-fly zones" over parts of Syria. It's Iraq all over again, and all it took was two videos of "beheadings" - which omitted the actual beheadings - to get the "war-weary" and bankrupt western populations to support the idea. It's really quite an absurd, surreal situation... I hope the turks get involved and get in deep, let them get sucked into another conflict which will undermine Turkish domestic stability and development even further. Erdogan is turning out to be my favorite Turkish leader yet, he has registered blunder after blunder over the past several years.

Also I forgot to mention in my post about the assassination in Venezuela that right wing extremists are again proving to be the favorite tools of the US, just like the right-wing losers in Poland, the Baltics and what's left of the Ukraine.

I think the Russian-Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah alliance lived up to expectations and have proved to be solid and strong.Iran's role as patron of Shia world is uncontested.Israel is guarantor of US interests in the greater Middle East, so its security comes as priority from US point of view. Ongoing competition between Turkey and Saudi Arabia on Sunni leadership role.Both are showing their cards, their capabilities, how strong, big, significant they are. This is how we should view the Turkish vote for possible intervention in Syria. It's not going to happen. Russia committed to delivery of advanced weapons systems to Syria during the Chemical Weapons deal. Turks cannot afford their F-16s get shot like flies, or their tanks carried back on shoulders. There will be resistance, even Hezbolla will resist them because they know Turkish soldier is no different to Israeli soldier on the ground. Turkey wants to show itself capable of managing ISIS on behalf of Europe, and also that it can press on regime change. Not going to happen. Assad's regime is advancing for a while now. The longer this instability is kept, the greater the risks on Israel. Today is ISIS, another day khorasan, another day something else can evolve, the region have become a fermenting cesspool.Let's look at the problem. We have some 25 thousand square kilometers mostly covering EasternSyria. It hosts some 10 or 15 thousand militants branded under ISIS banner. Air strikes can't and won't do the job of bringing an end to ISIS presence. Ground forces are needed, only two organized structures can take charge, that is, Syrian army or Turkish army. Since the Syrian army won't allow Turkish intervention, then it means Syria will chase the Islamist militants away, either will annihilate them in co-ordination with US air strikes, or the militants will revert back to their countries of origin, how? Through Turkey. The government of their origin countries will lock them in jail whence back, therefore, in attempt to escape from Syria they will go first to Turkey and seek a normal life there with the money they have collected lately. The Turkish army is getting ready to prevent the return of Islamists by mobilizing troops towards its border and if necessary beyond its borders when high risks are posed. Turkey favors fighting between Kurds and Isis, gets rid of two problems at once, hence we see intensification of offensives between Kurds and Islamists. Both are well armed, they are fighting over a common stretch of land in North East Syria and North West Iraq. Both have their eyes on oil wells in those regions. All four governments of Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey have an interest to tear the Kurdish space into pieces, so all of them will encourage this vector, because any genesis of Kurdistan in any one country represents a threat to the territorial integrity of all other states.This is the price the Kurds have to pay for thinking they can play smart in such volatile game. They should have stood up with Assad's government against Nato from day 1. They will soon scream genocide. Yemeni had an impact. Iwish someone can comment on Hong Kong since is also related. The globe is one theater now and all these developments are directly or indirectly interrelated.The diplomatic war between Saudi backed Egyptian government and Turkish government is manifestation of this competing role for Sunni leadership. Turkey-Qatar on one side, Saudi-Egypt on the other side.Egypt-Turkey spat continues as Cairo calls Erdogan's latest attack 'desperate'http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/112254/Egypt/Politics-/EgyptTurkey-spat-continues-as-Cairo-calls-Erdogans.aspxSoon I hope to see a pro-Hezbolla president in Lebanon.My prognosis for the next couple of months. Some diplomatic activity between Saudi-Iran over Syria and European-Russian talks over Ukraine, more clashes in Kurdish held areas in Syria.

I wonder if we may see a rebellion of western business/manufacturing/technology interests, because the globalist financial elites are hurting them big time due to their Russia policy. This includes not only Germany, but America as well. I know, I work as an engineer and see just how global things have gotten. Large manufacturing corporations were salivating over the growing Russian market due to its potential for many years to come (that is an increasing population, vast space, and cheap energy).

That article is a perfect example of western media being used to carry out the black psych-ops campaign against President Putin and Russia as a whole. The article loads, and the first thing that catches your eye is a giant picture of Vladimir Putin. A rational examination of the issue points to many glaringly obvious flaws in the article:-They accuse Russia without having conducted a thorough investigation. IP addresses are easy to spoof. Any rookie hacker would know how to make it appear at first glance that he carried out his attack from a location thousands of miles away from his actual location. There has been no investigation of the hacks, they just pointed the finger at Russia without evidence, just like when the Malaysian flight was shot down over Novorossiya, just like they claimed that "Russia invaded Crimea" in 2013 or Russia "without provocation invaded Georgia in 2008".

-Let's assume for argument that it was Russian hackers, that does not justify strongly implying, as the article does, that these hackers would have acted under order from President Putin. Russia is a nation of about 144,000,000 people, some will naturally be criminals. In fact, President Putin has largely cut down the activity of Russian criminals, while the US has covertly supported crime in Russia, including violent "neo-Nazi" wannabe faggots responsible for the murder of hundreds of Armenians and other immigrants. Placing Putin's picture at the top of the article about Russian hackers is like placing Obama's picture on top of an article about some random American criminals.

Extremely negligent security by supposedly tech-savvy western businesses (including running outdated and unsupported operating systems connected to the Internet) is the main reason corporations keep getting hacked. Perhaps if the government were more interested in enforcing stricter IT security requirements for large corporations - rather than spying on every text, email, website, video and purchase Americans engage in online - then these types of attacks would not happen as frequently. The greatest online threat to American citizens is the U.S. government spying machine, not the Russians... Of course IT is not what interests me here, it is the non-stop cheap shots and psychological tricks designed to scare the sheeple into fearing/hating Putin (aka "The New Hitler"). I'm waiting to see how long before the western press makes up headlines like "Putin caught killing puppies and kittens".

Here is a Tomato Bubble entry about the recent hacks:http://www.tomatobubble.com/id705.html

Guys, if you go to anna-news, you can watch the sureal footage of the airport battles raging this week. Legendary commander "Motarolla", paraded with this guys in the center of Donetsk today after airport battles, where people were waving balloons and taking their autographs.

An interesting article written by an ex-Soviet Navy submarine commander subtly appeared in the Russian press. The title is " Putin's Missile Surprise":

http://topwar.ru/59575-raketnyy-syurpriz-putina.html

I hereby provide you with the background and a quick analysis on that article:

The Russian Navy is nowadays introducing into service a number of brand new warships to the Black and Caspian Sea fleets: 6 large frigates, 9 smaller frigates and 6 Diesel-electric submarines.All these ships are armed with the super-accurate CALIBER cruise missile (also known as the CLUB system - which is an export version)According to the Black Sea Admiral, the missile has a range in excess of 1500 km. It is widely believed that the real range is more like 2500 km.This is a photo of one of the smaller frigates (950 tons only) that is launching one of the 8 CALIBER missiles it carries:http://i.imgur.com/U53SXfG.jpg

The following map shows the coverage of the CALIBER when launched from 4 different locations: Sevastopol - Novorossisk - Caspian sea coast - Middle of Caspian Sea.Note that the above coverage is based on a conservative 1600 km range for the missile. If 2500 km was utilized, even London would be targetable:http://i.imgur.com/1sEBbEk.jpg

Also noteworthy is that the smaller frigates are built in Zelenodolsk in Central Russia. They sail through the Volga river to reach the Caspian and a series of canals to the Black Sea. In order words these ships can fire their missiles while navigating through rivers:http://i.imgur.com/8EMC7c2.jpg

Unlike ground based missiles, the ship based CALIBERs are not covered by the INF treaty that limits the range of ballistic and cruise missiles to 500 km.Russia uses the Iskander-K (ballistic) and Iskander-M (cruise) missiles on ground based platform. The ranges of these systems are within the 500 km.The ship based systems is Russia's way of circumventing the INF treaty.Here is a recent video of both types of Iskanders being launched in a recent exercise:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY_uUvrd_-g

By the way, do you have any information on military tactics employed by ISIS? How are they carrying out their military offensives? Is there a discernible method to their military operations? If so, what is its nature?

While being a threat, ISIS is also convenient for many parties in the region. For example, ISIS beating the Kurds at the moment is convenient to a number of countries...Dirty politics at it is best.As far as ISIS tactics, I must admit I am not following that part of the conflict closely. But I don't see any genius in their tactics. ISIS combatants are the most fanatic and most motivated warriors in the region. The simplest way I can describe their continuous string of victories is: "In a world of blind and incompetent armies, the one-eyed fanatic Jack is king".

This would make the Jew second best! For the Turk has been enjoying very special care. For all you wondering why the Armenian Genocide is the only one in the history of mankind left out! For the Jew as much as they relish the fact that our case is not mentioned I give you the Turk. The special case is the Turk. For ISIS has not touched the Jew, yet in the long run they will one way or another. But the Turk is this special kid you see.

It is time we opened our eyes to something that in my view has been overlooked. There is a special relationship between someone and the toork that not even the Jew has this special treatment. This idea I have should be tossed around a bit more. Now that the cat is out of the bag sort of speak.

Homosexual propaganda is out of control in western pop-culture. The Putin government banned such filth from targeting Russian society. The choices Armenia had of whether choosing Eurasian/CSTO (Russian) or EU/NATO (western) integration were not simply economic or military in nature; Armenia's choice was on a fundamental, civilizational, spiritual level between recovery and development or degeneracy and decay. I will be relieved when Armenian ascension to the Eurasian Union is inked and cemented in four days.

Incidentally, if any of you have young children or are just interested in viewing large-scale sociological experimentation in action, do yourselves a favor and spend a week or two watching the prime-time programming on children/teenage television networks like Disney, Nickelodeon/TeenNick, and MTV. Even a knowledgeable person may be shocked at what is being presented as "normal," including, inter alia, extremely flamboyant homosexual, bisexual and transsexual children, and "Kardashian-style" interracial relationships between incompatible races.

Number of Gay and Lesbian TV Characters Growinghttp://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/10/01/number-of-gay-and-lesbian-tv-characters-growing-glaad-study-finds

***

Interesting read on the culture of waste, corruption and unaccountability within military procurement:

What is happening in Syria is ultimately a fight over spoils of war. Syria, as we knew it, is dead. A new nation, or nations, will emerge from its ashes. All are now currently maneuvering to get a piece of the pie. In other words, the fighting now is about who will get what after the final bomb explodes and the dust settles. All (i.e. Western powers, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, Iran, Alewites and Kurds) are currently maneuvering for the best seat in the house. I guess Bashar Assad is seeking to keep Aleppo, or what remains of it, under Alewite rule...

PFA has been up to this since its inception. One of its founders is actually a IMF employee. They are basically our Captain Americas in action. They are essentially our Syrian National Council. Theoretically, in interviews with CNN's Amanpour, they are meant to be the ones explaining to the audience why NATO forces need to bomb Armenia to topple its despotic regime and force Russian troops out of the region in order to bring peace and prosperity to the Caucasus. Western powers fund such groups for every nation they have an interest in (i.e. virtually all nations on earth). These people, like all those who represent Pre-Parliamant, Sardarapat, Armenian Renaissance, Civilitas, Heritage, etc, are Armenia's internal - and potentially most dangerous - enemies.

-It is notable that these young Iranians appear to be flaunting their wealthy and obviously-Western-influenced lifestyle to the world without fear of repercussions from Iran’s government, which is known to crack down on citizens engaging in what the regime deems subversive activities.

-Recently, seven Iranians were sentenced to prison sentences (since suspended) for uploading a video of themselves dancing to Pharell’s music video “Happy.”

In all this mayhem and cataclysmic calamities for the region the only territory which is not affected at all is the territory of the Bandit state. Chaos and mayhem, disasters and catastrophes, destruction and dissolution is the lifleine of the Bandit State; that is their only manner to thrive and maintain their supremacy and dominion over its neighbors and subjects. Could they be a mixture of an ET race who commited the fatality of mixing with the lesser humans ? How is it possible to control all the vital organs of the planet, the demographics of nations, the control of the elites in these nations, generation after generation ? They never err, they are never accountable , they are above everything else. They make the laws, bylaws and hamstring the judiciary in every nation. They have made all religions and sects within religions. Professor Lukaci remarked that christianity and Judaism is simply a quarrel amongst rabbis, dating since the days of Paul. We will not even venture into the economic arena. That is a closed area . Bombs will fall everywhere, but not on Zion. The bandit state is engaged, behind the scenes and the pallors of smoke, in re configuring the ME . There is much ado about the decadence of Amerika and the West, but the chosen never seem to go into decline, nor decay, nor have its centuries numbered. There is mumbo jumbo about the perilous state the Bandit State linger on. It is a false flag, they are getting stronger and stronger in inverse proportion to the decline of states orbiting under the chosenite star. Take the example of Argentina. A country wholly run by the elected race. Its former president and the incumbent are of the line of the chosen. They have a childish minister of the economy of the same line. Between the two, and the former juden, they practically have demolished the economy of the land. Notwithstanding that the juden child economic minister gets invoved in a fracas of enormous magnitude with the big heavyweight Juden;s from New York over a quibble on how to pay or recycle chronic fiat debt. The gloves are off, one Juden spits onto the face of the other juden judge sitting in New York , waiting to meet Lucifer when his terminal cancer knocks him off his perch. It seems that the childish juden from Argentina won his first round against his co-racialist from New York. The response was swift and visceral, the Buenos aires stock exchange plummettes by 12 % in a matter of minutes. As you very weel can see. since the days of bad man Peron, the nazi, the fascist, the nationalist, every singe economic Moses in Argentina has been of the blood of the juden since 1946. Juden quarrel amongst themselves and gentiles pay for the broken dishes . Gentiles quarrel amongst themselves and the Juden come out victorious. Like Frederich Nietzche said : It is unprofitable to discuss the Juden.Never forget, never forgive.

No sorry they are one of us sadly, I would love to blame ET, but that guy was nice the only thing he wanted was to go home. Not only did they ruin the ME they stole America and all her values. Sadly now she is only a ghost of her former self, going around the world obeying orders from someone else, lost to the fact that nothing she does is right. Leave it to the bandit, for the bandit is adapt at stealing, you only find out after the fact. America is in a slumber, and the thief is still plundering her treasure.

"They never err,"

Yes they do, they always do, but just when the last crying child has been sacrificed to the alter of jedia then the beast comes after the Jew, that is when the crying starts, but sadly only then, when it is too late. Take communism, who started it? Yet who still to this day cries the most? I arrest my Jew, I mean case.

"They never err, they are never accountable , they are above everything else. They make the laws, bylaws and hamstring the judiciary in every nation"

Yes they err, for the mere fact is that these laws are passed by none yahoodies, because the money they got as bribes from the yahoodie is enough for them to betray their nations. The Jews rationalize this by stating that you took the bribe so they are not guilty. You know dodging God's covenant by trickery. It's all so easy my friend, if you only have the money pay your congressmen. When he betrays the nation you too can wash your hands of guilt and just blame him. Learn!

"Professor Lukaci remarked that christianity and Judaism is simply a quarrel amongst rabbis,"

Sorry my friend this is where we part, Christianity has nothing to do with rabbies, in fact that is why they hate us more then the Muslims, for we are more correct. That is why when you flip on the TV you will see the anti Christ, for the anti Christ is not the devil that you were led to believe.

If I was a Turk, the symbolism here would be frightening. On the centennial of the Great War which resulted in the destruction of the Orthodox Russian Empire, consequently giving the Turks a temporary window of opportunity to consolidate their conquests of Armenian, Greek and other Christian property, the Russians have found themselves again and are back stronger than ever.

Scotland with the privilege to vote for it’s freedom and independence voted to be enslaved. Europe owes a special thanks to us Armo’s for if it was not for us defending the European frontier theses idiots would have lost everything. For now they have the privilege of being idiots some more, cowards, without a shred of blood they folded like good droogies, sadly we are still on the front line defending the other baboons,

So much for bagpipes, so much for our kin, so much for Europe in general as this speaks volumes of what has happened to our kin.

We now have Russians painting their saints on Migs. If anyone did not get the message well I don't know will, short of a brick to the head. These are the Russian, this is just one of their patriotic songs. And unlike the Eurotrash, they stand by what they sing.

More examples of the animalistic "pop culture" of the US training the clueless, low-brow masses into hating/fearing Russia, and at the same time training them to cheer wildly for some strongman American (ie what the tough-talking anti-Russian faggots from the media and western politician/intelligence agencies pretend to be) who can "stand up" to Russia. Whether news, movies, tv shows, video games or other "infotainment" a professional anti-Russian undertow is always built in.

Former Infosys recruiter says he was told not to hire U.S. workershttp://www.computerworld.com/article/2692372/former-infosys-recruiter-says-he-was-told-not-to-hire-us-workers.html

The joys of outsourcing and economic globalization, and more indicators of which direction the US economy will take in the future, namely down. With such short-sighted policies being common practice among many industries, wages and job opportunities for Americans will get only get worse. Other nations can learn a few things by watching the US commit suicidal blunders in every policy sphere, like the need for pragmatic, National Socialist based economic policies.

An interesting article from http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com.au/

"The ExcavatorOctober 6, 2014

Syria's Grand Mufti: Erdogan & Davutoglu behind Abduction of Two Aleppo Archbishops [June 2014]Erdogan should be the one apologizing. . . to the Syrian people, Assad, the Kurds in Syria, the victims of ISIL kidnappings and beheadings, and the families of the victims.

The Grand Sunni Mufti of Syria, Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, discusses on camera the circumstances that led to the infamous abduction of the two Archbishops of Aleppo, Yohanna Ibrahim for the Syriac Orthodox and Boulos Yazigi for the Greek Orthodox. He accuses the current Turkish government of sending a Chechen group that was trained in Turkey to abduct the two Archbishops, after dissatisfaction with the Syriac Orthodox Archbishop Yohanna Ibrahim several years prior.

Source: Syriac Foundation

"He [militant] wanted to get them to step out of the car. The pastor refused that they leave the car. So they immediately executed him. A Syrian would never do that. They immediately executed him in front of two Archbishops. They then said: "If you don't step out of the car, we will execute both of you. They took both of them. Thus, now it is impossible for those two to get released. And if I want to historically judge, I will judge both Erdogan and Davutoglu that they are the kidnappers of the Archbishops....yes, they themselves." - Grand Sunni Mufti of Syria, Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun".Posted by Saman Mohammadi at 10:50 PM

Russia has nothing against other CIS member states building closer ties with Europe, the only thing it insists on is that its allies (referring to Belarus and Armenia?) properly discuss the possible economic risks to the Russian economy, President Putin said at the summit in Minsk.

“We have never been opposed to closer relations with the EU, we ourselves want to move closer,” Putin said.

Russia not against European pivot for ex-Soviet allies – Putinhttp://rt.com/business/194832-russia-cis-europe-pivot/

It just sounds like pragmatic diplomacy, addressing a few key concerns:

-addressing the citizens of member states (who are constantly bombarded with "radio liberty" style propaganda), Putin is reminding that unlike the USSR, the Eurasian Union is not designed to subjugate member nations to diktats from Moscow; instead members are free to do business with Europe, Russia just wants coordination among the policies... basically a counter to the "you are losing your sovereignty(!)" bullshit the traitorous opposition and NGOs would have us believe

-addressing the EU, it shows a Russian desire to expand trade in stark contrast to American demands on the for sanctions against Russia

It serves Russian interests in a way if its allies have trade relations with Europe, because that will give Russia some slight leverage. Trade relations between the Eurasian Union states and European Union states come at the expense of American influence inside the EU. Especially if Russia is secure that it can keep the western influences in the political and social spheres of Eurasian Union states limited.

Not much to say about President Putin's comments. His words sound like carefully crafted diplomatic double talk. Don't forget, Moscow has been doing its best to look like the nice guy, the guy being picked on by the bully West.

I can now sleep better at nights. Armenia is now well on its way to joining the Russian-led Eurasian Union. The protest many of the Western NGOs in Armenia were preparing for today was a failure from a Western political standpoint. Efforts to make the protests seem as if Armenians were against Armenia's membership in the Eurasian Union proved utterly unsuccessful with opposition leaders Tsarukyan and Petrosian making pro-Russian statements. They were also incapable of getting large numbers of the sheeple behind their cause, as only several thousand people turned out.

At the end of the day, the survival instincts of us Armenians (which makes us stick close to Mother Russia) and President Sargsyan's brilliant political maneuverings (which has in effect tamed the major opposition groups) have won the day. Today more-or-less saw the death of the Western agenda to pull Armenia away from Russia's orbit. My suggestions in the past that Tsarukyan's Prosperous Armenia has become Armenia's controlled opposition is also now self evident. It is also very clear now that Levon Petrosian has become a tamed political figure. Armenia is well on its way to emulate the political system entrenched in the US - an elite-based political system, where only a select handful of political parties are recognized by the high state and are thus allowed to operate -

No Maidan for Armenia: Anti-Russian rhetoric not “on agenda” of Yerevan rally: http://www.armenianow.com/commentary/analysis/57501/armenia_oposition_rally_eurasian_economic_union

Congratulations. It seems that Armenia's ascension into the Eurasian Union might be a good thing, but the Armenians still don't have a common border with Russia. How can they manage a much more effective trade with Russia if they still have to worry about Azerbaijan? Now that Georgia has casted its lot with the European Union, at least Putin could now pressure Aliyev to play nice.

Not having common borders is a temporary issue that is technical in nature. Sooner than later, Tbilisi and Baku will be either absorbed fully into the Eurasian Union or made to cooperate with it. There is also the possibility, albeit remote, that Armenia will have common borders with Russia if a major war breaks out in the south Caucasus. Nevertheless, there will eventually be a free flow of trade between Eurasian Union member states. For Armenia, for the time being, airfreight will have to do. With that said, for Yerevan, membership in the Russian led economic pact is very important in that it has made Armenia even more impervious to Western/Turkic/Islamic designs in the region. For Yerevan this was more of a strategic move rather than purely an economic one.

PS: Don't believe everything you see in the news. Georgia will not join NATO or EU. Baku is a hostage of Moscow. Both belligerents will eventually dance to Moscow's music.

Russia is launching a 24/7 broadcast of RT in the spanish language in Argentina. Putin and Kristina Kirchner held a telebridge over the event. What's interesting is that Putin was adressing the lady president by her first name (not "president Kirchner", not "Seniora Kirchner"), but just Kristina. Also when he spoke to her directly, he used the informal version of "you".

This is actually very brilliant, much of the world is spanish-speaking, so go after probably the most influential spanish speaking country that (unlike Spain), battles for its independence and place in the world.

Much of South America, with the notable exception of Columbia, is fertile ground for Russians to operate in. But, you are right, Argentina has the potential to be their base of operations. Ultimately, the Malvinas Islands (Falklands) should be returned to Argentina by the British. A strategic alliance with Russia and Russian arms - can eventually make that happen for Buenos Aires.

Not only is Colombia pro-US, but the three Guyanas are actually under Western influence. I am speaking of British, French and Dutch Guyana that have no chance of cooperating with the Russians. Asia also has a huge potential for a strategic military alliance, which the Russians may already have started to formulate. That only leaves Africa, though I'm wary about having a Russian presence in Africa due to the ebola outbreak.

Lukashenko plays a double rhetorical game. He has always been a sneaky fellow, but intelligently using the Kremlin to subsidize Belarus, but pay proper lip service to the west. I mean really, does Belarussian politics cause problems for Russia? No. So he can say whatever he wants.

In the big, global picture, what Lukashenko is saying makes sense: Nation-states that acquire big guns cannot go around attempting to change internationally recognized borders based on every historical disputes in existence because such an approach to international relations will not end until the entire world goes up in flames.

So, in my opinion, what was said has simple "wisdom" based on the fundamentals of human logic.

Look at what was said at face value. It's pointless to look for a deep meaning here for it was merely the ego-based rhetoric of an eccentric (yet benevolent) dictator. In other words, Lukashenko is simply being Lukashenko. Ultimately, he realizes that the West is a much, much more serious enemy for him and his nation than his close kin in Moscow.

Not knowing the context of the words he spoke, I suspect Lukashenko was talking about eastern Ukraine and not Crimea, Abkhazia, south Ossetia or Artsakh. I am sure Lukashenko realizes that there are special, historic cases where borders will have to change. After all, his got his current borders due to such changes. Anyway, don't you guys worry. Minsk is not going anywhere because Belarus is an inherent part of Russian civilization.

Contrast this behavior with, for example, Armenians defending Artsakh from invasion. The "conflict" in Ukraine has been foisted on the Ukrainian citizenry and Ukrainian soldiers by a hostile, foreign-controlled junta which was installed by NATO, the US and the EU for the sole purpose of using Ukraine as a pawn against Russia. These soldiers' behavior provides solid evidence that: 1) the regime in Kiev is illegitimate; 2) Ukrainians themselves are not behaving like people suffering from a "Russian invasion" and 3) that a substantial percentage of Ukraine's population does not view occupying Novorossiya or Crimea as serving any vital state interest.

It will be interesting, to say the least, to see what types of protests or riots take hold as Winter kicks in, and the corrupt regime in Kiev fails to provide subsistence level social support.

Yes, the "nationalists" showed up started yelling at the soldiers, insulting them, and screaming out their bandera-era cliches. There isn't really an "awakening" in Ukraine, but the cold and hunger should have a sobering effect on them this winter. This is why Russia insists on these "peace agreements" and so on.

Yes, Russia has played the game in Ukraine in a slow, deliberate, calculated matter. Instead of declaring war as the jackals in Washington and Brussels had wanted, they parsed the situation and had an Anschluss with Crimea and de facto liberation of Novorossiya. As I see it, so long as the mighty, nuclear-capable Russian military protecting Russia's borders, and the west's agents provocateur in Russia facing crackdowns which will crush and bury them, the Kremlin can now they can sit back and watch Kiev slowly burn with zero chance of NATO or EU integration. Checkmate.

It is a very sad realization that, whether dealing with Ukrainians, Armenians, or even Russians, most self-styled "nationalists" are the lowest class people with extremely poor understandings of how politics work. The irony of "nationalists" yelling at soldiers is lost on the Nazi-wannabe monkeys in Kiev. They are the same class of loser as the ARF/AYF/ANCA panels calling for chaos in Armenia or protesting against the Armenian government. No wonder that local "nationalists" have become the west's and jewry's favorite tools to use in their clandestine operations in targeted countries.

Nothing to be said really. Europe as it once existed is dead. I never cared for either Catholics or Protestants, but it's still remarkable to see how far the "judeo-Christians" of the west have fallen.

That is indeed true, and the Catholics who on one hand are trying to cater to the LGBT community (not surprising since pedophile priests often molest young boys and girls) and on the other hand they preach one thing and practice another. There are also Catholic priests who say that poverty is a good thing, and such a backward thinking is the main reason why most Catholic countries are not that rich.

And the tragic part is that a quarter of Ukraine actually pledge their allegiance to the Pope.

You're correct Jerriko. Catholicism, as well as Islam and other cults, fosters some very unnatural views regarding women and sex. It's no wonder the raping of little boys is so common among these freaks. Pedophilia and homo-faggotry would naturally appeal to these types. Christianity in the west is dead today, the "liberated" Europeans and Americans have ended their blind faith in religion, and replaced it with blind faith in the globalist power structures (the news, the schools, the politicians, big business, etc.). Instead of calling non-believers in God "heretics" as they did in the past, they now call non-believers of mass immigration, interracialism, multiculturalism, holocaust-worship, GMOs, pharmaceuticals, diversity, and of course their so-called concept of "democracy" as the "heretics" of the day.

And don't be too sure the Catholic nations are not rich. The neo-bolshevik EU may have succeeded in recent years in robbing the Catholic nations of Europe of all their wealth, but for centuries earlier the Catholics had no problems pillaging and plundering the world, hypocritically, "in the name of God".

As for Ukrainians, they are a lost people. Non-Orthodox Slavs are essentially western-wannabe filth, just like non-Orthodox Armenians. I don't care if they are practicing or non-practicing, as long as at least nominally they are Orthdox; because any other religious affiliation would open the door to foreign (western) loyalties and a feeling of separation and superiority to their own race and nation - it's treason waiting to happen. While it may seem as though politics and religion should not mix, it is undeniable that the two are deeply rooted in history and inseparable.

Hollowhox museum taking part in anti-Assad psych-ops. Not a peep out of those fraudulent kike assholes regarding the ongoing Israeli genocide in occupied Palestine. That's the western political scene in a nutshell: hollowhox worship (aka hollowcaustianity) + mainstream media + false accusations of violations of human rights minus any evidence.

Off-topic, but an interesting example of U.S. psychological warfare from the Vietnam War. It's the "doom-and-gloom" and foreign Army denigration and desertion-ecouragement propaganda of its day, tailored for a superstitious Southeast Asian population.

No surprise, the German economy is showing signs of a downturn in the wake of the self-destructive sanctions against Russia. The US killing several birds with one stone (sanctions). Forcing the Germans to deploy sanctions against Russia ultimately weakens the German economy, which like all economies depends on imports and exports with its large and wealthy neighbors. A weaker Germany means a weaker Europe as a whole that the US can push around with even less resistance, as well as a weaker Euro to ensure that the Euro never positions as a legitimate challenger to the dollars status as the international reserve currency.It also dampens German-Russia cooperation, which if it ever came to fruition and reached its full potential would pose a threat on the European and Eurasian heartland which the Anglo-American-Zionists know they would be unable to counter.Finally, a struggling European economy would ensure continuing low birth rates among native Europeans. The crappy economy of course will not lead to any halting of the massive third world immigration formerly White Europe has seen, even though there is no employment for the hordes of Muslims, Africans and Asians pouring in. They are setting the European continent up for a bloody future.I don't personally care if the Europeans commit mass suicide or not because Germany, France, and England and to a lesser extent Austria and Italy were the primary countries which empowered Turkey and ultimately allowed the Armenian Genocide to happen, and it was the German-heralded Treaty of Brest-Litovsk which gave Western Armenia to Turkey. Still I personally admire many things about Germany and be interesting, and geo-strategically favorable, to see Germany throw off the Anglo-American-Kike yolk and forge closer relations to Russia.

"The poll results are consistent with a recent tendency for record-breaking ratings for President Putin and other top Russian officials. Researchers explain this by ‘mobilization’ and solidarity of society in the face of foreign hostility, and also by events like the accession of the Crimean Republic into the Russian Federation."

Reverting back to the previous discussions we had, World War or Cold War? I think there is a possibility to witness a WW III, but the pattern of such a war is not like any of the previous ones. The likelihood for regional armies slipping into direct confrontation is slim, perhaps 2%, such as Iran vs. Turkey. The possibility of major world powers slipping into direct clash is another 2%. Ukraine was a perfect trigger to see such a scenario, but so far we witnessed a deescalation.

A third possibility is to see the world slip into WWIII by the spread of islamic terrorism throughout the world, including Europe, Asia and US. This scenario has higher chances compared to the other two because we have witnessed in the last few years the re-awakening (or rather the invocation) of the archetypal Islamic force hidden in the collective sub-conscience of all Muslims. The idea of establishing a caliphate is a direct reflection of this Islamic archetype, where there is an underlying feeling that a caliphate will pull the Muslims out of their misery, out of their poverty etc... It is a nostalgic call for the past, where Islam was all powerful and all Islamic people were unified under a common caliphate. Poverty and misery will only help to accelerate this awakening. Provided with necessary funding and a fertile ground, things can pick up impressive pace.

Let's assume that the Islamic State is a production of CIA and poses a serious threat to Russia (although as always I do not believe this, despite all facebookish rumours of hillary clinton writing about ISIS, or Snowden leaks talking about it, or even the even more stupid rumour that the Caliph al-Baghdadi met with Joe Biden. All these rumors not only are unfounded, but also serve as distraction to understand the core of the problem. During war times, entertaining such illusions serves no useful purpose.

Therefore my questions:Q1: what do you think are the chances that Russia might drop a nuke on ar-Raqqa capital of IS?

Q2: what do you think are the chances that Russia might get involved in Syria and start a bombing campaign similar to what it did to Grozny?

I find it highly unlikely that Russia will resort to the use of nuclear weapons. If nukes were used it would be during a conventional war and in a conventional field of battle, and in this scenario the nukes used would be tactical. Russia will continue to support Assad and his army but will not directly intervene unless ISIS threatens the Russian base in Tartus. If we consider that ISIS is not an American or Saudi controlled enterprise than Russia will not intervene because every action that the US and its partners take against ISIS, will result in further anti-Western sentiments among Muslims and Sunni Arabs in particular. Of course I realize that a great many Muslims do not support ISIS, or are even hostile to it. But I also know from history that people are sheep and that all it takes is for a core group of radicals to fight and die for a cause for a revolution to take place. Consider the Bolshevik revolution or the Cuban one for example. With that said, why would Russia want to add its name to the hit list of the towel-heads by engaging in attacks against them? The only reason is if ISIS presents a clear and present danger to Tartus.

As for the news about Russia upgrading various bases to host its strategic bombers I think this is a reaction to NATO, as well as a part of the wider strategy of making Russian led organizations like the CSTO and SCO fuller in scope of duties. While on paper both organizations, and now the EAU may seem as partial equals to the Euro-Atlantic organizations like NATO and the EU, in reality they are like babes next to a grown up. I do not buy into the argument that Russia wants weak allies and submissive ones. I think it wants trustworthy allies, who will defer to Moscow in certain situations, but which can work together and create synergy within said organizations.

I ask these questions because I can't understand the intentions behind the news that “Russia Decorated MiGs In Armenia With Images Of Saints”, do you think this is just a message to Turkey? or is there an actual operation (clandestine or maybe to be announced) operation to kick off soon? Keep in mind, Armenia hosts the closest Russian air base relative to Syria. If there is any plans to get involved in Syria then 102 division is a good candidate to get involved. Reminder from Tsarina Catherine II, that Syria is the Key to the Russian house!

Add to this the latest large scale drills with soldiers moving 1000 kilometers. Armenia to hold largest Russian military drillshttp://vestnikkavkaza.net/news/politics/60876.html

Also add the previous "Ottomania" drills.Also add this piece:

“Bondarev was also quoted by RIA Novosti as saying on Wednesday that Moscow is negotiating with Bishkek to reconstruct the Kant airbase in Kyrgyzstan, which is a home for Russian fighter jets under CSTO auspices. While the base is usable, further construction is needed to support Russian strategic bombers, he said.

Bondarev said similar work will be done on an airbase in Armenia, the Soviet-era Erebuni base, which is already home to Russian MiG-29 fighter aircraft.”

In general Obama's 3 year plan to fight ISIS is a recipe for disaster, specially when no exit strategy is proposed, anyway, fighting is done without US flesh, so they are willing to risk it.

My 5 cents, things are out of control, I doubt any world power actually has any clear 10+ year strategy.At present we are dealing with mid term planning (2-3 years at most), it's more about crisis management, and reactionary behavior, wait and see till the dust settles and hopefully we have boots or our allied boots on the ground.

Arevordi, do you think Russia dropping a nuke on ISIS capital is able to boost Russia's stature in world politics? I mean, nobody is going to condemn Moscow for such an act right? It would even be praised as saving the world from a cancer...

Wow. Once again we see Turks, the "Armenian opposition" (or at least the most radical segments of the opposition who are directly controlled by Washington), the US, the EU and Azerbaijan advocate the exact same suicidal "solutions" for Armenia. Funny how all of those groups have the same sick ideas about what "regional security" in the Caucasus means.

Her article is full of the same old empty phrases and unfounded allegations about "oligarchs" and "democrazy" and "corruption". I suggest instead that monkeys in Turkey should stick to importing terrorists into their country, while the monkeys in Europe and America stick to their programs of economic suicide and continued importation of third world trash to the toilet countries they live in.

Here is some slight background on this cunt. I cannot tell if she is a kikess or not, but odds are pretty high.http://www.epc.eu/team_details.php?hr_id=13&dept_id=3

Turkey should get used to seeing major failures, it will be seeing many more in the near future. I hope the incompetent, arrogant, and generally unlikeable erdogan gang remain in power in Turkey for many years. In fact, I would say "decades" instead of years but I am cautiously optimistic that Turkey as it exists will not last for "decades".

Once again we can look at the position and status of our enemies and only conclude: thank God Armenia is secure inside the Eurasian Union and CSTO. God bless the Armenia-Russia alliance, I am looking forward to the wondrous developments awaiting our homeland. It may be a bit premature, but let us Armenians do what the Europeans traditionally do and begin to draw up plans to take a piece for ourselves as the Ottoman/Turkish state decays before our eyes.

A gallery of the pfa event from this past July. The event is tied in with the report that I linked to in my previous comment. If you look closely at the 7th picture you'll see that the anti Armenian, and pro azerbaijani jewess cunt, brenda shaffer, was present at the pfa event.

I think pfa is a combination of naive individuals as well as traitors. The suggestions they offer are unrealistic, short sighted, and ignore fundamental constraints placed upon Armenia by natural and man made structures.The leadership is full of egoists, having heard about the personality of david grigorian from people who have spoken with him, as well as interacting with him briefly it is clear the man has a one track mind and believes he has the solution to all of Armenia's problems. His ego and those of the other top ranking people involved with pfa are what makes them traitors whether they intend to be or not. The good news is that they are persona non grata at the Armenian embassy, they are monitored by the NSS when in Armenia, and with the exception of their leadership they do not have many proactive members. The majority of the names listed on their site are people who are either no longer active or barely active.

I agree about PFA members and their activists being a mix of idiots and traitors. I also agree that the traitors amongst them do what they do unwittingly (i.e. they are not consciously being treasonous). Simply put: Their massive Armenian egos and political ignorance - coupled with a nice salary working for a major Western institution in the case of David Grigoryan - blind them to fundamental truths. They do not realize that their activity - essentially in service of the American empire - can be potentially very destructive for Armenia.

Some years ago (before PFA I think) I met David Grigoryan in New York at a friend's house. After listening to him speak I remember thinking - what a shallow and self-centered asshole this guy is.

There are so many cynical comments I can make here. I'll just focus on "gee, I though Richard the Pseudohistorian Hovannisian said Turkgay was more democratic than Armenia, yet I have not heard of any journalists getting killed in Armenia in the past several years, even though Armenia is far more infested with foreign agent "journalists" than Turkgay. Oh well, I'm sure the State Department will follow up on this incident".

At 3:10 in this video, we see Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian explain that the newly established Polish-Armenian military equipment plant in Armenia will produce high quality equipment which can be further exported to the nations of the Eurasian Union. The plant will initially produce things like tents, vests, and other modern gear which the Eurasian Union nations may be interested in. I'm glad to see Armenia developing its domestic military production capabilities, and I'm glad Armenia may see profits from export in addition to profits from employment at the plant.

Let this stand as a clear response to the cyberwarriors who claim that Armenia has no role to play in the Eurasian Union other than serving as a Russian oblast, or that Armenia is somehow losing its sovereignty. Through smart management, Armenia's government can keep Armenia within the Russian orbit where it will be safe from the decaying sociological factors (i.e. globalism and "democracy") which are destroying the west, while at the same time allowing Armenia to profit from economic interactions with what's left of the west. Armenia has the potential to once again become a crossing point and trading post for the east and west, or today's eastern and western blocks.

From within NATO, as far as I know, Armenian peacekeepers have served under Poles in Iraq, Germans in Afghanistan, Greeks in Kosovo, have trained with Americans and Lithuanians, and will soon be training with the Italians for peacekeeping in Lebanon. Regardless of how we may feel of NATO (and I despise it personally), it is utter nonsense to claim that Armenia is "losing its sovereignty".

Additionally, the video contains some very nice shots of renovated military industrial buildings and plants in Armenia. This is a far cry from the decrepit footage we used to see in the 1990s and early 2000s. It may be at a slower and steadier pace than we may wish, but Armenia is slowly getting back on its feet and reorienting itself. Evolution not upheaval/revolution!